Iraq: UK Forces

Lord Ahmed: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have considered withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in welcoming the release this morning of Norman Kember and two Canadian hostages as a result of an operation by multinational forces, including British forces, and will wish to pay tribute to all those involved.
	Our troop levels go up and down in line with the tasks and the conditions on the ground. In the forthcoming roulement in May there will be a reduction. We have consistently said that we will stay in Iraq until the conditions for handover of security responsibility have been met. The assessment of whether those conditions have been met in any province will be led by the Iraqi Government through the joint committee for transfer of security responsibility.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I too congratulate the multinational force on rescuing the three hostages, including Mr Norman Kember. I express deep sympathy with the family of the fourth hostage, who was murdered.
	According to Amnesty International, about 14,000 Iraqis are detained without charge by the multinational force. Given that British troops will remain in Iraq, can my noble friend clarify whether those detained by UK forces are allowed access to lawyers and visits from relatives during the initial stage of detention? Will he explain what measures are being taken to ensure that those detained by UK forces will not be held indefinitely? Finally, will Her Majesty's Government consider replacing western troops with an Arab League or OIC peacekeeping force?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we recognise that the legal status of detainees and their access to legal representation is a vital component. However, responsibility relating to their detention is a matter for the Iraqi Government. It is important, following the establishment of an Iraqi government of national unity, that those matters will be a priority for that government. We look forward to the creation of a government of national unity to begin that process. I will write to the noble Lord and give full details of the further information for which he asked.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches join the Minister in welcoming the release of the hostages. The Minister mentioned the joint committee. What are its terms of reference, and how soon do the Government anticipate it will be ready to reach conclusions?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the terms of reference and the criteria that the joint committee will use have been set out publicly. They come under four levels: the level of terrorist activity in a province; the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to deal with that level of terrorist activity; the degree of control that local and central government has in the province; and the speed at which the coalition is able to respond in support of the Iraqi security forces. The process of consideration will begin shortly, in April. It will then be considered on a rolling, monthly basis thereafter, and we look forward to the conclusions of the review.

Lord Garden: My Lords, we join in the messages of congratulation on the hostage release operation. The Minister has drawn attention, as has the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, to the joint committee's work. It is important, because it will determine the UK force withdrawal plan. How is it made up? How many members of the committee are there? Of those, how many are UK representatives? Will the decisions on assessments be made by consensus or by majority?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the committee is made up jointly of members of the Iraqi Government—for example, the Iraqi Prime Minister—General Casey, the leader of the coalition forces; and the UK and United States ambassadors. The majority of the decision making on the body will be led by the Iraqis. Decisions in the end will be led by the Iraqis, in consultation with coalition forces.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, at the end of the process what would happen if the Iraqi Parliament said "Leave" and the Iraqi Government said "Stay"? Whose view would prevail?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, my understanding is that the view of the Iraqi Government would prevail.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful in explaining how the committee works. Is he really saying that, in all circumstances, the decisive and final view would be that of the Iraqi Government? Does it depend at all on the nature of that government—whether they are a government of national unity, which he says he hopes for and which we all hope for, or a government pursuing some purely sectarian policy? In the end, does not the responsibility for keeping or withdrawing our forces lie with Her Majesty's Government?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: we retain our sovereign right as the Government to make decisions on the deployment of our own forces. However, we have always said that we will stay in Iraq until the job is done. Our exit strategy is to leave at a time when there can be a handover from us to the Iraqi security forces. The decision about when that position has been reached in each of the provinces—I stress that the decision will be made on a province-by-province basis—will be taken jointly. We have not given up our sovereign ability as a contributor to that decision, but it is for the Iraqi Government to decide at what point they feel they no longer need our help in supporting the transition to government.
	I will answer the noble Lord's question directly: we expect the creation of a government of national unity. They have to address the growing concerns that we have about increasing sectarian violence. We are optimistic that a government of national unity will emerge.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I, too, welcome the news about the hostages. The people of Essex will be particularly delighted to hear the news, and I am conscious personally of the anxieties of family members and the damage that has been done. It is very good news.
	Does the Minister agree that there is a strong historical precedent for thinking that the longer invading armies stay, the less popular they become and that it is easy for all the problems of the country to be dumped on them? Is it not therefore important that we go on saying, for the sake of our own troops as well as the people of Iraq, that we intend to withdraw as quickly as we may?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate: it is very important for us to state again and again that we will stay only for as long as we are required to stay by the Iraqi people in supporting them in their transition to a democratic and stable government. Our strategy is built on the creation of that democratic government together with the reconstruction of the country. We have seen real progress on both those things. It is clear that security will not be the solution. Security can support and contain sectarian violence, but there will need to be a political solution in the end. We are seeing good progress towards that political solution underpinned by progress on reconstruction.

EU: Fundamental Rights Agency

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the establishment of the European Union's fundamental rights agency in Vienna.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government welcome the Commission's proposal to establish a European fundamental rights agency. There are at present no such bodies to assist Community institutions.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is, however, rather alarming if we recall that, before the French and Dutch votes on the EU constitution, Mr Keith Vaz told us that the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have no more force than the Beano, and the Prime Minister assured us that the charter would not be justiciable in the Luxembourg court. Therefore, is the Minister aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admitted in Starred Questions on 14 December that the Luxembourg court was already starting to take note of the charter in its judgments and that her noble friend Lord Triesman, in a Written Answer on 11 January, revealed that the legal basis for the agency had not yet been agreed? If the Government stand by those replies, do they not mean that the whole awe-inspiring fundamental rights initiative, which seeks to impose EU law on our economy, employment, welfare, education, health, environment and culture, is taking place in a legal vacuum?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the fundamental rights agency will be based on Article 308, with which I think the noble Lord is familiar. It is a kind of catch-all provision that is being used sparingly—in this case, I believe, appropriately—to establish an agency the purpose of which will be to support institutions, not least the Commission, perhaps by looking at legislation rather as governments here look at their legislation to see whether it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Prime Minister said, the charter remains what I would describe as the backdrop to what we do; it does not have legal force.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the law of averages, is bound sometime to come to a correct conclusion, even if it is for totally wrong reasons? Does she agree that there is no European human rights agency, merely a proposal for one? Does she also agree that such a proposal is somewhat ill founded, as such an agency is unnecessary, because the work that it would cover would conflict with the work that is already being done over a wider number of nation states by the mechanisms of the Council of Europe? Will she therefore use all her energies in the council to ensure that the proposal is resisted?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, during the UK presidency of the European Union I spent many a happy hour with the LIBE committee in the European Parliament, which has responsibility for this. The role of the Council of Europe was addressed seriously there, as indeed it has been addressed in my discussions with the House of Lords Select Committee and with colleagues from other European states. I was in the Netherlands last week discussing this very issue. My noble friend is right: there is a serious issue to be worked through about the relationship between the work of the Council of Europe and the fundamental rights agency.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, the proposal for a fundamental rights agency has for the past five months been under intense scrutiny by Sub-Committee E of the European Union Select Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Indeed, the Minister has given useful evidence to it. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that the committee plans to publish its report within the next two weeks? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will, as usual, give it careful and, we hope, sympathetic consideration? In accordance with the House's scrutiny reserve resolution, will the Government not take a final position on the proposal until they have fully studied the report and commented on it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I spent a happy two and a half hours before the committee, which was extremely useful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, says, the committee has huge expertise. I hope that the committee found it as useful as I did. I can confirm that we will consider carefully what the committee has said. It is our understanding that the Austrian presidency wishes to bring this to a conclusion in the final Council in June. It will be dealt with by the main Council, not by Justice and Home Affairs, because of the way in which the agency has been put forward. We will indeed have high regard for what the committee says.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister agree that even the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, occasionally, and generously, strikes a note of consensus? He is absolutely right in some of his concerns. It is correct that the new commission is yet to be set up. However, the Charter of Fundamental Rights sort of hangs in the ether—not embodied in any treaty, because there is no treaty—and yet it has been made clear that the European Court of Justice will take account of the propositions in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Can the Minister explain what the real status is and whether the ECJ is right in taking that stance? If not, should we not say so?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the description that I used was "backdrop"; perhaps another description would be "a reference document". As the noble Lord will be aware, the UK Government approached the discussions on the European constitution by referencing all the charter issues back to national legislation. Indeed, my understanding is that, when the European Court of Justice looks at the questions it addresses, it will look at the charter in that context. There is nothing unusual in that. We are very firm in what we have said in the context of it being a reference document.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we have no difficulty with the European Union looking at fundamental rights issues across an EU of 25—shortly to be 27? It is rather anomalous that the European Union imposes conditions about human rights, prisons, judges, and so on, on applicant members, but that those conditions start to weaken once they become members. So there is an appropriate role for such an agency. The question is very much about how it is set up, if it is to be set up, how it relates to the existing Council of Europe agency, and the problems of duplication in human rights courts and agencies that are beginning to emerge with the increasing overlap between the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord: there are real issues about duplication and scope. Noble Lords will be aware that, certainly in the six months that I spent dealing with this, there was no sense of unanimity across the Council or the Parliament—so of course it would be the Council's decision—on either of those questions. I say again that there are real concerns about the relationship with the Council of Europe. There is a recognition that the charter has a role to play, but it is not a legal role. We have to be clear that if the fundamental rights agency comes into being, it must have an absolutely clear remit that does not overlap.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; we are now into the seventeenth minute.

Police: Female Officers

Lord Kimball: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many female officers resign from the police force each year.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, 590 women officers—1.7 per cent—voluntarily resigned in 2005; 589—2 per cent—did so in 2003–04; and 501—2 per cent—did so in 2002–03. The Government are keen to ensure that the police service is able to attract and retain trained, experienced women. A steering group chaired by Hazel Blears has been set up to oversee this work, and new procedures have been put in place to examine the points at which women leave the service, and the reasons behind their leaving.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Without being slightly churlish, however, I feel that it lacks a certain sympathy. All the speculation about amalgamation is unsettling for lady officers. They play a vital part in the work of the force, and it is time that the question of amalgamation was laid to rest so that they can get on with the business of arresting criminals.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we understand that any change of any institution is unsettling for officers, no more so for women than for men. We have real progress in female advancement through the service. We hope that, if the reorganisation goes well, there will be even greater opportunities for a more equitable balance between male and female officers.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has told us that Hazel Blears will look carefully at this, is she able to tell us why the drop-out rate for black and ethnic minority women officers at probationary stage is so high? If she is unable to tell us now, will she undertake to write to me?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness, but the drop-out rate between nought and two years for women is lower than that for men. As we go through the service, there are issues involving the two to 10-year bracket, such as when women have children and matters of that sort. The flexibility of the service seems to have a negative impact, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are doing everything possible to address those issues. I will write to her about her specific query.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there any significance in the numbers of women officers who resign after their statutory maternity leave? Are there opportunities, such as work sharing or part-time work, for those who want to spend time with their small children beyond the statutory limit?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the difficulties that the noble Baroness rightly highlights is the inflexibility of some working practices. That is one of the things that we are looking at with great care. In the reorganised police service, which is much more intelligence-led, there are more opportunities for specific expertise and for women to have a more flexible input and play a part. We are looking at those issues carefully to make sure that we do not lose the considerable talent of our women officers.

Lord Condon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, through fair and transparent selection processes and promotion procedures, female police officers have risen—quite properly—on merit to the most senior positions in the service, including chief constable, and that only the post of commissioner is yet to be filled by a talented female colleague?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that women have done very well in the service. We have six chief officers, four deputy chiefs and nine assistant chief constables. I can also confirm what the noble Lord said about recruitment. Women now make up 21 per cent of the number of police officers and are being recruited at a rate of 32 per cent. The success rate at the assessment centre, which is competency-based, is 78 per cent for women and 65 per cent for men.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the figures that she quoted include women special constables? If not, can she supply figures showing whether they leave at the same rate?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have with me the figures for special constables. I shall look at that issue, but I assure noble Lords that overall wastage rates are low in the police force generally. The wastage is lower for women than for men: it is 3.5 per cent for women and 5.7 per cent for men. Those figures compare favourably with other public services.
	I shall look at the issue of special constables. Noble Lords will know that they have a slightly different status from those who are employed on a full-time basis.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister said that the regionalisation of the police force was unsettling. Is there any truth in the rumour that the boundaries of the new regional police forces just happen to coincide with the boundaries of the European regions under the Europe of the regions project?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the ingenuity of the noble Lord in getting Europe into a question never fails to astound me. I can tell your Lordships that the reorganisation is consistent with the needs of Great Britain and that that takes priority.

Pensions: Ombudsman's Report

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Higgins and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
	What action they propose to take as a result of the report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman on Trusting in the pensions promise.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, after very careful consideration, we have reached the view that we cannot accept the findings of maladministration made in the report and have, therefore, decided to reject all but one of its recommendations. We intend to issue a full response to this report in the next few weeks. Regarding the one recommendation that we are accepting, we have already begun work to review the time taken to wind up pension schemes.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. What action would Her Majesty's Government take against any insurance company that had acted as they have done? Would they, as they did when insurers over-promised personal pensions, order them to pay compensation of £14 billion?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not accept the premise behind the noble Lord's question for the same reason that, after very careful consideration, we rejected the recommendations of the ombudsman. All the leaflets that the ombudsman was concerned with made it clear in specific statements that they were not a full explanation of the law and were for general guidance only. None of the leaflets or statements formed a proper basis for scheme members, still less trustees who are professionally advised, to assess the security of individual pension schemes. The report fails to demonstrate that decisions taken by individual scheme members were influenced by information that was or was not in those leaflets. The report did not establish that the wording of the leaflets led to losses suffered by individuals. We estimate that the cost of fully implementing the ombudsman's recommendation would be £15 billion over a 60-year period. On the basis that we cannot accept those recommendations, we are not able to make those payments.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the anger of the 85,000 people who have lost their pensions has been aggravated by the meanness of the financial assistance scheme on which they have to rely? Will he confirm—I have received the figure from his office; he was not able to answer me last week—that the amount paid out so far by the FAS is about £100,000, which is less than £1.25 for each of the 85,000 people who have lost their pension? Will he confirm that figure for the record? What exactly did the Prime Minister mean last week when he talked about expediting a review of the financial assistance scheme? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that it will be reviewed in advance of the current spending round? If he has agreed, when will the first penny from that review reach the pensioners who need it?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I informed the noble Lord last week of the number of people who had received money from the FAS. He is right that it is roughly estimated that £100,000 has been paid out so far. The Government are disappointed that so few people have received payments so far. We are dependent on information provided by trustees. I have made sure that officials in the financial assistance scheme are being proactive and getting in touch with trustees to expedite the provision of information and speed up payments. We want to speed up payments.
	The noble Lord mentioned the Statement that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made last week. He will know that we were committed to reviewing the amount of money that should be given to the FAS as part of the next spending review. We remain committed to that. The Prime Minister said last week that we would do that as quickly as possible, and we will do so.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does my noble friend share—as I am sure does the House—everyone's regret at what has happened to those pension schemes, in the same way as we all deeply regret the collapse of Equitable Life? However, if employers, employees and trustees really believed, on the basis of a couple of leaflets, that the Government were underwriting and guaranteeing the whole of the occupational pension system, what incentive would there have been for any employer ever fully to fund a pension scheme? It is called "moral hazard". Does my noble friend therefore agree that the right response is to strengthen and speed up the FAS?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I echo my noble friend's point that anyone who has met or knows about the circumstances of people who were affected by the problems with pension schemes can have only the utmost sympathy for them. My noble friend was right to refer to the moral hazard. Responsibility in the end lay with those pension schemes and not with the Government. I reiterate: it is difficult to see what causal connection can be made between the very general information in those leaflets and the ombudsman's recommendation that the Government should pay £15 billion over 60 years. There can be no connection.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, have the Ministers in the department learnt nothing from the report? I am grateful to the Minister for the voluminous package of departmental pension guides that I received last night, following a request that I made during my response to the recent Statement. I observe that, in July 2001, one of the booklets stated:
	"If your employer runs an occupational pension scheme, you should think carefully before deciding not to join it".
	The word "not" was in heavy type. Would the Minister authorise the same words today? If not, what advice would he give to today's pensioners?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that seems to be very fair advice. The noble Lord will have noticed that each of the leaflets states in one way or another that it is general guidance only. The noble Lord could have quoted from a leaflet produced by his government, because the ombudsman's report covers the period when his government were in office, following the passing of the Act that led to the minimum funding requirement. The limitations of the MFR and what it meant were made clear by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I am afraid that it is difficult to conclude that the ombudsman is right.

Business

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, following the debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, my noble friend Lord Drayson will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place, entitled, "TA—Rebalancing".

Squirrels

Earl Peel: rose to call attention to the decline in numbers of the red squirrel in Britain and Europe; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, it appears difficult to get an accurate assessment on the current state of the red squirrel in the United Kingdom. English Nature states that knowledge of the red squirrel population size is poor and there are no methods that could be used to generate meaningful population estimates or even estimates of population change. That lack of information is rather depressing, given the often precise figures that are produced for other biodiversity action plan species, and it suggests to me a lack of commitment to saving this special animal. The best estimates of the UK red squirrel population come from the wildlife trusts which estimate that the population is now around 160,000. We know that this species was formerly distributed throughout the United Kingdom, but since the introduction of the American grey in the early part of the 20th century it has been severely reduced and is now found only on one or two islands, and in the north of England and Scotland.
	To many, the red squirrel represents an integral part of our woodland landscape—an iconic creature, immortalised by Beatrix Potter, through the charismatic character of Squirrel Nutkin. But before concentrating on Squirrel Nutkin—or sciurus vulgaris, to give him his rather unflattering title—I thought I might conduct a brief health check of some of the main characters in Beatrix Potter's class of 1912. Starting with Tabitha Twitchit and Tom Kitten, they are truly on top of their game—despite the fact that against a declining wild bird population they are responsible for the killing of some 160 million birds per annum. It is perhaps surprising, given this carnage, that some of the conservation charities do not cry "foul"—but that might have something to do with the small matter of membership.
	Let us now consider the status of Mr Tod, the fox. On second thoughts, given that he has taken up 700 hours of parliamentary time, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to prolong the debate; but something tells me that we have not reached the end of Mr Tod. Is he doing well since the legislation? Not particularly, I think. That brings me on seamlessly to the other really controversial character that graced the class of 1912—and that of course is Tommy Brock. Hasn't he done well? Despite suffering from and carrying tuberculosis, he has successfully managed to establish himself in the hearts and minds of the nation as being more important than dairy cows or, indeed, farmers' livelihoods, and, like Mr Tod, has managed to secure his very own legislation.
	Squirrel Nutkin must look back on his alma mater and think to himself, "How could it have all gone so wretchedly wrong for me?". Why couldn't he, like Tommy Brock, have employed a top public relations firm and secured himself as a logo for a major conservation body? How very different life might have been. But what really hurts—and hurts to the core—is that given that it is largely the fault of the American grey squirrel that he is in such a parlous state today, why is it that when someone's dog kills a grey squirrel he can be fined up to £5,000?
	Where has it all gone so wrong for the red squirrel? The introduction of the grey squirrel and our lack of ability or desire to control it is the primary cause. Despite valiant efforts by some individuals, there has been reluctance by government, by the Forestry Commission and others to come to grips with the problem. The notion of killing and controlling one species, even an alien, to protect another remains anathema to some; yet that is an essential part of wildlife management in a countryside that has been formed by man. I well remember my conversation with a senior national park officer about a deciduous plantation under park management that was systematically being destroyed by grey squirrels. When I inquired why no action was being taken, I was told that the public would not approve. Surely, it is up to bodies such as national parks, the Forestry Commission, English Nature and others to explain to the public why certain actions are necessary. After all, it was done with coypu and ruddy duck eventually.
	But there remains a reluctance to act positively on wildlife management in the hope that the problem will evaporate. So far as the red squirrel is concerned it will not, and immediate action against the grey is essential. However, perhaps the Government, the Forestry Commission and others may take heart from a recent omnibus survey conducted on behalf of the European Squirrel Initiative, which found that in reply to the question, "Do you think the population of alien grey squirrels should be controlled in some way in order to preserve the red squirrel population?", 74 per cent of respondents approved.
	The reason why the grey squirrel has such an impact on the red is twofold. The greys colonise the same woodland habitat as the red, but because they are larger and live in higher densities the woodland habitat has to provide them with 10 times more food supply than the red squirrels require. Consequently, the reds cannot compete. The other major problem associated with the grey squirrel is the squirrel pox virus carried by the greys but which affects only the reds. It is of course lethal. What is really disturbing is that the virus is now present in the red squirrel population in Kielder in Northumberland and Whin Fell in Cumbria, two of the last strongholds south of the border. Furthermore, I am informed that there have been several confirmed cases in the grey squirrel population in southern Scotland; and whereas to date there is no evidence of infected reds, it can be only a question of time.
	Of course, as any forester knows, grey squirrels are also responsible for considerable damage to trees. But perhaps surprisingly, despite a number of Written Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and myself, it seems difficult to obtain any qualified figures from the Government on what the damage equates to financially. I find that surprising given the substantial grants available for planting and managing woodland. But the case against the grey squirrel does not rest there. Although no comprehensive research has been undertaken, it is clear to most with practical experience in such matters that greys are having a profoundly detrimental effect on the woodland bird populations of this country, many of which are still in decline. It seems extraordinary that despite the inexorable spread of the species and concern being expressed some 70 years ago about the detrimental effect that grey squirrels were having through predation of eggs and young, no proper scientific research has been undertaken.
	I am amazed that the Forestry Commission, English Nature and the RSPB have not taken the matter on board. Lack of finance has been the weak excuse, but perhaps fear of the answer may be nearer to the truth. I would be interested to know what the Minister has to say on that point.
	Walking as I do through St James's Park from time to time, I cannot help noticing the absence of common or garden birds. Where are the finches, the tits, the thrushes and the warblers? We are told by the RSPB that given appropriate habitat and food there is no reason why such species should not thrive. However, given the good habitat and the endless supply of food from the tourists—and, of course, no agrochemicals—why are those species absent? Perhaps the crows and the squirrels could have something to do with it.
	I am confident that there is a general consensus that the red squirrel should be saved and that the grey must be controlled. Whether it is desirable to eliminate the grey squirrel is a matter of opinion. Personally, I would regard it as highly desirable given the case against it. Whether it is practical is another matter. In the absence of a wholly satisfactory solution, which may be forthcoming in due course through immunocontraception, at the moment the only realistic solution is to pinpoint those areas where a viable population still exists, and through a well co-ordinated and organised approach conduct a ruthless campaign against the grey squirrel.
	For that to work effectively will require a wholehearted commitment from all parties—government, conservation agencies, the private sector and, above all, the Forestry Commission. Given that the Forestry Commission owns 22 per cent of forestry in England, 43 per cent in Scotland and 44 per cent in Wales, it has a huge responsibility. During the Committee stage of the NERC Bill, in response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Byford on red squirrels, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, replying for the Government, said that the Forestry Commission would support action to help the red squirrel. That is not good enough. The Forestry Commission should lead from the front and co-ordinate everyone in positive action. Without such an initiative, that cannot work.
	It is important to recognise that Britain is a signatory to several international conventions that refer to the control of alien species. Those conventions are inevitably complex and open to different interpretations, but what is crucial is that the red squirrel is added to the EU habitats directive, which must be possible if there is the will. Although protected under the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is not protected under European law. As EU law takes precedence, there are examples where pine plantations harbouring populations of red squirrels have been felled to protect dune habitats, which are protected under EU law.
	I hope that the Government will consider ways to strengthen the red squirrel's status in law to help to ensure its survival. Furthermore, we should not forget that this is not simply a UK problem. Similar experiences are developing in Europe, so it was with some surprise that I received a reply from the Minister to my Written Question earlier this year on whether Annexe 4 of the habitats directive is to include the red squirrel. The answer was no,
	"as the rest of Europe has stable populations that are not yet threatened by the spread of grey squirrels".—[Official Report, 7/2/06; col. WA 91.]
	Have we learnt nothing from our experience in the United Kingdom? In Italy, the grey squirrel is causing the progressive disappearance of native reds and is creating extreme damage to commercial tree, nut and fruit plantations. The presence of the grey squirrel in northern Italy has, simply, the potential to destroy the red squirrel population in Europe, never mind the economic and biodiversity problems that it will also deliver. The UK cannot sit idly by. We must urge the Italian Government and the European Commission that action is urgently required, starting with the necessary protection of the red squirrel under EU law.
	I recognise that the Government have recently produced their own policy and action plan to deal with the grey squirrel problem. Whereas I welcome that in principle, it will begin to work only if there is a co-ordinated plan and a genuine willingness on all sides to succeed. The Forestry Commission has said that £1 million will be made available for such purposes, which is fine as far as it goes, but if there is to be an effective campaign against the greys, such resources must be made available year on year. Similarly, I welcome the announcement by Ms Rhona Brankin, Deputy Minister for the Environment in the Scottish Parliament that Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission Scotland are to produce an action plan within three months to save the red squirrel in Scotland. Clearly, those two initiatives must be co-ordinated to be effective and I should be interested to know from the Minister what role the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will be playing in that.
	However, in the long term, the Government must continue to look for effective immunocontraception. That now appears to be a genuine long-term solution, but how co-ordinated the research is and how committed the Government are to it are other questions. Again, I ask the Minister for a comprehensive answer on those points. I believe that Sheffield University was conducting research on IMC, but that funding for it ceased in 2001. I wonder why.
	In the short term, well co-ordinated local campaigns against the grey must be the answer. It can be done, as demonstrated by Dr Shuttleworth and his team on Anglesey. I appreciate that Anglesey is an island, but the greys can cross the bridges of the Menai Strait. However, the number has been sufficiently reduced to allow the reds to recover.
	After habitat loss, invasive species are the next greatest cause of biodiversity loss. The grey squirrel is on the World Conservation Union's list of the top 100—no mean achievement, given that there are several thousand species on the list.
	In conclusion, I urge the Minister to heed the words of Professor Gurnell of Queen Mary College, London who, at a recent conference in Edinburgh, said:
	"You either have red squirrels and no greys or you have greys. If you accept grey squirrels, then you accept the extinction of the reds, you accept falling populations of woodland birds, you accept serious long-term damage to ancient and semi-natural woodlands and you accept a changing landscape".
	I know which I want. I only hope that the Minister and the Government agree with me. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for initiating the debate and commend him for his bravery. It takes a brave man to initiate a debate that had Radio 4 saying this morning that he would be calling for an immediate cull of grey squirrels. I hate to say that his postbag will immediately be filled with letters from irate people who love grey squirrels. Indeed, many of us in this House who prefer to love red squirrels also enjoy the sight of grey squirrels in our gardens and parks, although in a recent discussion they were described as rats with good PR.
	One of the problems in the public perception is that grey squirrels are the only squirrels they see. They see them in parks and gardens, and they are sociable and friendly animals. Yesterday, I walked through St James's Park and watched tourists feeding grey squirrels crisps by hand. In Regent's Park, a grey squirrel came up to my son and me and actually climbed up my leg to look in my pocket. This is not an unusual experience with grey squirrels, because they can become quite aggressive. That is a fact, although I believe there has been a cull in Regent's Park recently, so there are not so many greys around at the moment.
	It is a constant battle in many gardens around the country to stop the greys raiding any provision of nuts for birds. I have been keeping a close eye on the nest boxes that I have put up.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps they are friendlier in Regent's Park than they are in St James's Park. One that ran up my leg bit me.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, members of the parks authorities say that a major problem with greys is that they can be quite aggressive because they expect to be fed.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the problem with greys, and the reason for the debate, is that they have single-handedly led to the extinction of red squirrels in many parts of the country. Red squirrels survived so well in this country because Britain was cut off from the rest of Europe when the ice age retreated, and many species of trees that would have made the march north did not reach these shores in time. There has in the past few centuries been a massive change in the diversity of woodland from the Scots pine and fir trees that would have been much more the norm in previous centuries to more broadleaf varieties. However, the speed at which the greys are moving up the country is a problem.
	I declare an interest in that I have some woodland in Northumberland that has red squirrels. Last year, however, we found our first grey squirrel—it had been killed in the road—so it will surely not be too long before the grey squirrels arrive. I am just on the edge of Kielder Forest, and it is very depressing to think that that last bastion is under threat. The Zoological Society of London carried out a study into competition between greys and reds, which showed that it is not so much that over-competition is leading to the replacement of reds with greys, although that is a factor, but that squirrel pox is also a factor, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed out. Where squirrel pox is added to the mix in the integration of reds and greys, the reds disappear 25 times faster in those areas. It is a real problem.
	Grey squirrels are also a problem for all other native woodland species, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, also pointed out, because greys rob nests, and there has been an unexplained decline in the numbers of woodland species—unexplained, probably because there has been no attempt to study woodland birds. That decline is probably due to the grey squirrels, which account also for the destruction of trees. Five per cent of trees that suffer from grey squirrel infestation die. That is a particular problem in the north, where grey squirrels are particularly destructive to Scots pine and Norway spruce—the main bastions for red squirrels.
	Efforts involving buffer zones have been undertaken to halt the advance of the grey squirrel. It is unfortunate that, in Northumberland, when there was talk of a cull of grey squirrels, there was such public outcry that much of that work had to be deferred. That is an issue which this debate is highlighting: there has to be a change in public opinion. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that greys could be wiped out in large parts of the country. They have taken up residence and the forestry suits them so well that it will be impossible to remove them from large areas. There would be a question of whether we would want to do so.
	However, in the buffer zones where there would be a mix with grey squirrels, that has to be undertaken. It is not just the competition from the greys—wherever grey squirrels go, squirrel pox follows. Red squirrels infected by squirrel pox die within a week. Those who have had the joy of seeing red squirrels in woodland realise that they are very secretive animals. They have small, segregated populations that are particularly vulnerable to the predations of the grey.
	Two other aspects on the decline of red squirrels have been talked about; first, road kill and, secondly, predators, which I do not believe is such an issue. A breeding pair of goshawks has been established in Kielder Forest for some time. Part of their main diet is red squirrels, but they have not knocked back the population. I believe that grey squirrels will do that.
	I have some questions for the Minister. First, will Defra help the Forestry Commission to fund large-scale control and culling in the buffer zones, which has been talked about for a long time? However, it does not seem to have been undertaken to any great extent. That would help. The second issue was brought to my attention by the work of the Northumberland Wildlife Trust. I believe that its work through Red Alert has been one of the most effective campaigns in the country. A main proponent of that was Lord Ridley—whose Blagdon Estate has done a great deal to preserve red squirrels, but I believe that the greys are almost on his doorstep—who would have spoken about this. Will Defra provide funding for control of grey squirrels in areas not eligible for Forestry Commission grants?
	That work is vital as it covers small woodlots which greys can use as stepping stones in their dispersal closer to the red squirrel reserves. Defra has indicated the possibility of rolling this project out to other buffer zones, but at present there is not enough funding to employ a person to write the project which would take advantage of this funding. Will the Minister talk to the local office to find out whether money is available to finance this project? It seems ridiculous that that has not been undertaken already. Will the Minister also have discussions with those undertaking the work in Scotland and in the north of England? Policy differs on each side of the border, which causes confusion and a lack of clarity in the ways that control is being undertaken. It would be helpful if he could talk to his colleagues in the Scottish Executive to make sure that a common-sense approach is undertaken.
	This is an important debate; I have been amazed—having taken part in so many debates—by the extent of press interest in this issue. I very much hope that the press will take the opportunity to say that this is not just a debate about culling grey squirrels in large areas of the countryside. Grey squirrels have taken their place and will be with us for the foreseeable future in most parts of the country. However, if we are to protect the red squirrel, we must make sure that areas of the country are no-go areas for grey squirrels.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, after the opening speech of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I do not think there is much left to say about red squirrels. Red squirrels are rather like quiet, well behaved people, who do not make a nuisance or an exhibition of themselves, or commit crimes, and so do not get themselves into the papers in the vulgar way grey squirrels do. I have read reams about grey squirrels—far too much, in fact, and almost all of it bad—but very little about red squirrels. Red squirrels do not strip bark from trees; damage arable crops, market gardens and garden plants; dig up bulb and corms from recently sown seed; eat birds' eggs; or eat telephone wires and electricity cables, as grey squirrels do.
	I have the good fortune to live in one of the few remaining areas of this country the grey squirrel has not yet penetrated: Upper Deeside in Aberdeenshire, four miles west of Braemar. I live on the edge of the woods of Mar Estate, which consist mainly of Scots pine, a good mix of larch and Douglas fir, and—by way of hardwoods—a lot of native birch, a sprinkling of rowan—mountain ash to some of your Lordships—gean—or wild cherry—bird cherry, a few hardy maples and the odd alder. None of these trees is of much interest to the grey squirrel, but they are an almost ideal habitat for the red, of which we have a large number.
	Since my housekeeper and gardener started feeding—as they thought—the birds, we have become a sort of squirrels' canteen. They run about all round the house and, in the early hours of the morning, climb onto the roof and run about playing, making quite a noise. They play on the lawns in front of us. I have seen them climbing up the walls. Last summer I was sitting outside and a slight movement caught my eye: there was a squirrel, sitting upstairs on my bedroom window sill, sunbathing. Recently, my housekeeper had one sitting on her kitchen window sill, within a foot of her. Okay, there was glass between them. They almost run over one's feet if one is sitting still in the garden. I would not say that they are tame; I do not think one could easily make a pet of one—nor would I wish to try—but they seem quite unafraid of us. Curiously enough, the cat does not touch them, preferring rabbits, mice and birds. There are a lot of buzzards around, but I have never seen one take a squirrel. Perhaps they do not care to come too near the house and, of course, they do not hunt in woodland.
	Long may this happy situation continue, but I am very worried. Grey squirrels have already got as far as Aboyne, where there are lots of beech trees and a habitat to their liking. I fear they will soon make it to Ballater, where there is lots of oak. One of the troubles is that the hardwoods, beloved of SNH and the conservationists, are the ideal habitat for grey squirrels, whereas red squirrels prefer pine forest. Luckily, on stony, acid soil and at the altitude at which I live—1,250 feet above sea level—pine forest thrives, whereas such hardwoods as beech, oak and nut trees, beloved of the greys, struggle, except in sheltered pockets. However, it is possible to grow them. I hope those busy people who sit in overheated offices, hate conifers and interfere with everything that we do, will not force us to plant them, so creating a grey squirrel-friendly habitat. Having said that, I fear just leaving the habitat alone will not be enough, because greys can adapt to red squirrel habitat, if pushed. The only real way to preserve the red squirrel for the future is, I believe, to exterminate the greys, and it will need a very determined and single-minded initiative by the Government to do this. They would need to take their courage in both hands because a lot of people who have never known the red squirrel think, in their innocence, that grey squirrels are dear little creatures and, as we have heard, even feed them crisps in the park. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, Squirrel Nutkin was not a grey squirrel; he was a red one. In Beatrix Potter's time squirrels were red and the greys were only just beginning to be imported into this country.
	I want to put two questions to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which I hope he will respond to when he winds up. First, I believe that once upon a time a bounty was offered for killing grey squirrels. You had to produce the tail in order to claim it. Does he know about this, and is it true? That could be a way forward. Secondly, I do not know whether grey squirrels are edible. If they were and a market could be found for their meat, that would help to get rid of them. The only trouble is I have a nasty feeling that it would be rather difficult to establish the market because a lot of people, children in particular, would say, "Oh no, I couldn't possibly eat that", just as they say they cannot eat dear little bunny rabbits. But this is worth having a look at.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am rather surprised that the Labour Party opposite, which professes to be the party of animal rights, does not seem to have any speakers down at all in support of squirrels today. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on putting the case so strongly for the red squirrel. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, seems to want to have it both ways: he wants his grey squirrels and his red squirrels, but that is not possible. If we look 10 years ahead, there will be no red squirrels if we do not take more urgent action. The indigenous red squirrel will have gone and we will have to put up with the imported grey squirrel from the United States. Every now and again I go there. In urban areas grey squirrels are an absolute pest. They are in and out of dustbins and motorcars; they stand on the roof and do all sorts of things on the windscreen, and they cause accidents by dashing across the road. A large number of grey squirrels, which would be inevitable, would cause a great deal of hardship in this country.
	Unfortunately, Hadrian's Wall has not kept the grey squirrel out of Scotland. I note that way back in 2002 the Scottish Executive accepted that there was a significant infestation and an increasing presence of grey squirrels. That then becomes the responsibility of Scottish Natural Heritage, which is now well known for sitting on fences and doing nothing, and that seems to be the present situation. Greys are spreading north from Cumbria and Northumbria and, much more seriously, they are bringing squirrel pox virus with them. The outlook is grim for the reds and they are doomed because, within a matter of days of being infected with pox virus, they die. Further, the rate of displacement accelerates rapidly if the virus is in a woodland. The situation is deteriorating and more action is required urgently. I know that the Government are defending 16 red squirrel strongholds and giving some funding towards that end, but perhaps the Minister can tell us a little more about what is actually being done with the money in these strongholds and how successful they are.
	As my noble friend Lord Peel said, at the end of February a conference was held in Edinburgh by SNH and the Forestry Commission. The Minister gave those two organisations three months to produce a plan. One month has gone by. What progress has been made? Has news from Edinburgh filtered down to English Nature about what is going on? Has the Minister heard anything? What progress can we hope to see by the end of May?
	As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, we need a cross-border mechanism. Living on the border, I get driven mad by those who act as if nature does not cross the border from one country to another, as has been highlighted by the issue of raptors at Langholm and the lack of activity by SNH and the RSPB.
	We want this to be done humanely, but have we considered a bounty for killing grey squirrels? That is the only way in which we are going to have a dramatic impact on numbers. People who say, "No, you can't have a bounty and you can't kill grey squirrels", must accept that there will not be any red squirrels in 10 years' time. Mr Knight, the Minister in the other place, wants this to be carried out through humane targeting and pest control—he thinks that that will enable us to control the threat. I wonder whether that is really technically possible and feasible. I hope that the Minister will tell us how that is going to be done.
	My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned the European Squirrel Initiative. It is pretty depressed with things but is leaving the situation rather at the status quo. But the International Union for the Conservation of Nature is very cross about the situation and feels that we have to take a great deal more action. CITES, which looks after endangered species, is equally cross that the United Kingdom is dragging its feet, sitting on fences and doing very little to deal with the grey squirrel menace and its spread throughout this country. There is also the Berne convention, which I think I actually signed in 1979. The feeling is that we, as the European leader, are doing very little to deal with a serious issue in our own country.
	Mr Knight said—I paraphrase—that it is not desirable to eradicate greys completely, but it is. I do not know why people cannot understand that, if we do not deal with this urgently, there will be no red squirrels in 10 years' time. That would be something that the nation would feel the Government had let us down on.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Peel in everything that he has said and I congratulate him on taking the initiative on this subject. I hope that, in calling for action, we really do get action on what is, in the countryside, an important and difficult problem.
	Recently, I was encouraged to note in a Midland newspaper—we have a lot of grey squirrels in the Midlands—a report saying that the Government had plans to "kill", although I think that it meant "control", thousands of grey squirrels in a bid to protect the native red. I read this with great interest, because I realise that, over the past 60 years, certainly in the Midland area where I live, grey squirrels have been something of a menace. They have made their home there. They have a reputation for raiding the bird tables in the gardens. They are a threat to native woodlands, as I can prove from some of the damage that has been done to my own woodland, and, as my noble friend Lord Peel said so well, they are a threat to the wildlife.
	We know that grey squirrels are not native to Britain. They were introduced to us from the United States, where they are still recognised as "tree rats". We have to control an alien species to protect our native reds, which are in rapid decline, as we know only too well. Does the Minister agree that, now that there are some 2 million grey squirrels in this country, we should really get on with taking action to control their growth? As the noble Earl said, that number compares with some 160,000 reds. Does the Minister agree with the Minister with responsibility for biodiversity about culling by shooting and about making grants available to those who assist in culling, particularly in the appropriate areas? That is a very important factor. Will he also agree to support the funding of research on other areas of controlling squirrels and, in particular, as has already been mentioned, contraception? That is one way of taking some positive action.
	It is not realistic to talk of the total elimination of the grey squirrel, any more than it is of any species of animal—such as the badger, which causes havoc through the spread of tuberculosis, particularly among the cattle population. As with badgers, it is essential to concentrate a cull in target areas. It is surely striking a balance in the squirrel family by removing the aggressive and destructive greys, which may transmit disease as they multiply—as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, the squirrel pox virus is lethal to the red squirrel.
	The red squirrel has been loved by generations raised on Beatrix Potter and Squirrel Nutkin. In the publicity that I hope will follow, there should be a realisation that it was the red squirrel that was loved by those children who loved Beatrix Potter.
	Squirrel culling is not a new phenomenon. Some 60 years ago the Ministry of Agriculture started to encourage people to kill squirrels, offering—I remember it only too clearly—a shilling a tail. I became a very wealthy young man at that time, as we had a lot of grey squirrels in the area and I did not need a lot of encouragement to do something about them. When the government at that time had paid out some £250,000, they decided that that was enough. There was no perceivable difference to the squirrel population.
	We can now concentrate on some action that will deal with the issue, rather than do what was done then. Some 2 million squirrels can do tremendous damage to our trees and wildlife and, 60 years on, with modern technology and scientific development, I hope that the Minister can support appropriate and positive action.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, because this debate has come just in time. Unless something is done now, we are going to lose the red squirrel completely.
	I think it was 86 years ago that Thorburn's classic work on the mammals of Great Britain was able to describe the red squirrel as "the Common Squirrel", going on to say that it was very plentiful. At the same time there were three introductions on the American grey squirrel, saying that it was a pest because of its habit of barking trees; that it had no future in this country; and that the grey squirrel's trouble was that it could survive only if it had a ready supply of deciduous trees and could not survive in a coniferous forest. During the war, however, most of our softwoods were devastated for pit props and all the demands of war. The red squirrel was losing its food supply and was at the mercy of the expanding population of the American grey.
	We must now look at the large areas of coniferous forest in Northumberland, Shropshire, Wales and Scotland to help save the red squirrel and to destroy the American grey. However, just to make it harder for the red squirrel, we now have the problem of the goshawk. The Reverend Mr Morris published A History of British Birds in 1857. The reverend gentleman went on to point out, without any question of political correctness, that the most favoured food of a goshawk was a squirrel.
	One of the best books on birds today, Field Guide to British Birds, describes the goshawk as a "rare bird of passage". In 1960 a few goshawks escaped from a falconry centre and some enthusiastic falconers followed that up by putting goshawk eggs in sparrowhawks' nests in Kielder forest. There is no evidence whatever of their having had a permit to carry that work out.
	We have the importation of goshawks but we also have an explosion in the buzzard population, and they feed on red squirrels. We need to encourage red squirrels and we need to come to an agreement to kill off buzzards, of which there is no shortage today. The Government have been most co-operative about cormorants in inland fisheries and I hope that they will consider extending the same co-operation to culling buzzards in areas where we want to see the squirrel population improve.
	So much of the suitable habitat for the red squirrel is in areas controlled by the Forestry Commission. I believe that the commission should have a wildlife officer who can deal with these matters. At the moment the emphasis of the commission seems to be entirely on public access but if we want to see the red squirrel survive, we need the co-operation of a proper wildlife officer in the Forestry Commission.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, I live in south Lakeland, an area of mixed woodland and farmland. It is quintessential squirrel country. Throughout the war, in the 50s and into the 60s we had only red squirrels and then the greys began to arrive. We have not seen a red squirrel for at least the past 12 months. So I warmly welcome the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in drawing our attention to the relentless invasion of the grey squirrel. He speaks with great authority and experience. Today I am for once in complete agreement with him. I am also full of admiration for the wide range of knowledge—sadly all on the opposition Benches—that has been shown today.
	What is to be done? We have had many suggestions today. I used to subscribe to Red Alert. I say "used to" because for one reason or another I seem to have lost touch with it. I am all in favour of Red Alert but it has recently felt it necessary to concentrate its efforts on red squirrel refuges. It does not have a refuge in my part of Lakeland although I think that they are in north Lakeland. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, may well have them in his part of the world. One cannot blame Red Alert. I am sure that it is right to go for refuges because it is, as it were, trying to protect a redoubt. So we are out on our own. We kill grey squirrels when we can but I fear that we are fighting a losing battle. Indeed, we may have already lost it.
	A good local friend of mine, with whom I was recently talking about squirrels in preparation for the debate, drew my attention to the admirable organisation, the European Squirrel Initiative, to which the noble Earl referred. I rather gather that it has drawn attention to the situation in Italy and the need for a European directive on the basis that we in Whitehall do not really think that there is a problem, and that if there is a directive perhaps we will have to take notice. That is rather an ingenious way of tackling the matter. But of course, as the noble Earl said, there is a problem in Europe. It is not the case, as I think the Government said the other day, that there are no grey squirrels in Europe. There are three colonies, if that is the right word, in Italy. At least one of them is in the process of crossing the Alps. I believe that the French are already getting rather worried that they might make it to France. If they get to Germany, there will be a complete invasion taking place. Brussels now must take an interest, whether through a directive or through the European Parliament I do not know; perhaps both.
	I regret to say that I have not the faintest idea whether we in the UK have any official interest or policy on red squirrels. I can hardly believe that Whitehall is terribly excited about the subject, but I hope that my assumption is wrong and the Minister will be able to contradict me. I used to be on the board of the Natural Environment Research Council, and I do not recall that the invasion of the greys was ever on our horizons. There are, I suppose, interesting philosophical issues—"Should we not let nature take its course?", and the survival of the fittest, and all that sort of thing. To argue that nature is merely taking its course is not really the right argument, when it is what we have done that is taking its course. We have allowed grey squirrels to be established in this island.
	I am not really interested in those quasi-philosophical questions. I confess to being a softie and a romantic. I would like to see the red squirrel survive. I do not see this Government, or any alternative government, having much interest in the subject. In a more than modest way, a fight to protect the red squirrel should surely be part of successive governments' biodiversity activities. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I have no idea whether the scientific community can help us on this. Is it a matter of science research? One is aware of having feeding boxes of the right size, which only red squirrels can use, and so forth. Surely this is not a question of a need for rocket science. One suspects that this is not a serious science policy issue as much as a PR issue. The need for a campaigning approach of strategically sited refuge areas may be the basis for the fight back or for holding the fort. I am delighted to hear that a real success is happening in the isle of Anglesey. An island is a pretty useful place for creating a moat. It is good news to hear that Anglesey has decided to be grey-squirrel free.
	I question whether we are holding our own in the Lake District. In south Lakeland we have certainly lost the battle. Three or four noble Lords who have spoken this morning, starting with the noble Earl, have referred to Beatrix Potter and Squirrel Nutkin. He was a red squirrel, and that was at Derwentwater. Beatrix Potter was an intrepid fighter and she was a splendid person. I must be the only noble Lord who knew her. I was taken to have tea with her in about 1941, just before she died. Sadly, I have no real recollection of her, except that she seemed to me to be a bit like Mrs Tiggywinkle. Unfortunately, I was at an age when Biggles was much more interesting to me than Peter Rabbit or Squirrel Nutkin. The point about Beatrix Potter is that she was a very tough businesswoman and she was a doughty fighter who did not suffer fools gladly—that is to say, people she disagreed with. She would have been hugely effective in fighting for us for red squirrels.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as some of your Lordships may know, I have a longstanding interest in the predicament of the red squirrel and the plight that it appears to be facing. Indeed, I instituted a debate in this House in 1998 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, responded so nicely. Therefore, I very much welcome the debate that we are having this afternoon and congratulate my noble friend Lord Peel on instigating it. I should also explain to the House that I am patron of Red Alert North West and I live on the front line between the reds and the greys.
	At the conclusion of the 1998 debate, I must confess that I felt depressed. I feel even more depressed now. I recognise that manful efforts have been made by all kinds of people, and I should like to put on record three without necessarily doing so in a way that excludes credit to others—to Red Alert North West, to the Forestry Commission, particularly Keith Jones, and to the European Squirrel Initiative.
	The fundamental issue that we are talking about goes back to the fact that when red squirrels and grey squirrels come into contact with each other, the reds are eliminated. Looking back, I believe that we have spent far too much time trying to work out precisely why that happens, and we have not been prepared to accept the evidence of our eyes as truth. I happen to think that squirrel pox is the principal cause of the problem, which seems to have many characteristics akin to avian flu as far as squirrels are concerned. We have been far too intellectual about this and tried to be far too clever. If the priority is biodiversity, it follows as night follows day that you have to keep red squirrels and grey squirrels apart. The evidence is clear on how to do that. There has to be at least some killing of grey squirrels. You do not have to be a Machiavelli, Bismarck or Clausewitz to know that, in politics, if you wish the ends of a policy, you have to wish the means to put it into effect. Collectively, we in this country have not grasped that point. We have not been prepared to do so. As my noble friend Lord Plumb pointed out, that has been apparent for many years. And he gave an example.
	It so happens that, not all that long ago, I was reading a book entitled Green Thoughts, published in 1952, by a now almost completely forgotten figure, Sir Stephen Tallents. The book contains a short chapter about grey squirrels in which he quotes the policy of the then Ministry of Agriculture. The policy was that,
	"the importance of adopting concerted action for the destruction of grey squirrels cannot be overemphasized".
	He continued by lamenting the inadequacy of policies to implement that.
	Governments in this country of all political persuasions—and I refer as much to the government of the party to which I belong and of which I had the good fortune to be a Member—have been characterised by squeamishness. As far as the red squirrel is concerned, squeamishness spells nemesis for this lovely and iconic creature. Those involved with trying to preserve the red squirrel in this country have adopted a policy of appeasement towards the greys. The red squirrels have had Chamberlains and not Churchills but it is Churchills that they need.
	When Sir Stephen Tallents was writing the piece at his house in Kent, he saw a squirrel and some of its confreres through the window. So what happened next? In his words, "the animal was shot". I dare say that some of your Lordships will think that Sir Stephen Tallents was a kind of bucolic baronet straight out of the pages of Fielding. No, Sir Stephen George Tallents, 1884 to 1958, merits three pages in the Dictionary of National Biography. He was a civil servant and public relations expert, for a time in 1919 British Commissioner for the Baltic provinces. He helped draw up the treaty that established Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. He was secretary to the last Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the first Controller of Public Relations at the BBC under Lord Reith. He was no Tony Lumpkin. As we live in an era when transparency is the order of the day and is a contemporary buzzword in politics, I ought also to explain that he is my wife's grandfather. I have been assured by my mother-in-law that, had he been a Member of your Lordships' House—and I suspect he might have been rather a good candidate—he would certainly not have sat on these Benches.
	What did Sir Stephen do? In his own words:
	"As I skinned it, I seemed to remember that in America squirrel, fried or stewed was a favoured dish. So next morning I rang up the Natural History Museum to inquire if I could safely eat my grey squirrel's remains. The Museum was courteous but diffident, and promised to ring up the Zoo. The Zoo, I learned, was encouraging but could not speak from first-hand knowledge. I wavered, but a man on my homeward train told me of a lady who in those wartime days was feeding boiled grey squirrel to her dogs. That was good enough to me".
	If we mean to save red squirrels, it is no good extrapolating past policies, wringing our hands and expressing platitudes any more than it was in Sir Stephen's day. We have to be imaginative, radical and think out of the box. For a start, why do we not take a leaf out of Sir Stephen's book and follow the example of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and promote the animal as food? After all, it can be done in the interests of forestry, conservation and as part of a programme of diversifying the rural economy. As has been explained, greys do millions of pounds worth of damage to trees. They are driving the reds helter-skelter to oblivion and destruction, and the Government are encouraging shooting to diversify the economic base of the rural economy. That approach gives the Government the chance of achieving several disparate policy aims at one and the same time.
	Squirrels are said to be good to eat. Sir Stephen wrote that, in Connecticut, the great chef Brillat-Savarin created a banquet,
	"of grey squirrels stewed in Madeira, together with partridge wings en papillote and roast turkey".
	The LL Bean Game and Fish Cookbook says:
	"I believe, squirrel meat is the most delicious of all small game meats. Chicken-fried young squirrel is better than rabbit or chicken, two of my favorite meats; in addition, the squirrel lends itself to most savory stews and braises".
	There are then 10 pages of specific recipes.
	I am sure that the obesity tsar would be only too over-excited to support this good healthy initiative. What about celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver promoting it for school dinners? Indeed, the House authorities could put it on the menu here. My father was a Member of the other place shortly after the war. When he and some of his friends were dining in the Members' Dining Room, they found black partridge on the menu. They knew a little about birds and none of them could find in their memory any recollection of black partridge. Nor could they find it in the bird books that they consulted. After some investigation, it turned out to be young rook. So there is certainly precedent here for that kind of thing.
	Despite standing here promoting it, I must confess that I have never actually eaten a grey squirrel—I do not know whether any other noble Lord has. Perhaps it will suggest that I suffer from one of the worst characteristics of those in public life today. However, I am prepared to give it a go. I invite each and every Member of the government Front-Bench Defra team to the hotel in the Lake District where I am a director—and which has, I hasten to add, one AA rosette for fine food—to dine on grey squirrels to launch an "Eat a grey to save a red" campaign.
	I will feel very let down and be very sceptical of the Government's true intentions on biodiversity if, on the advice of some politically correct adviser, the invitation is refused. After all, let us not forget that many of the things we eat as a matter of course are entirely lovable and pretty creatures which appeal to the wider world. What is the difference? Perhaps more importantly, I am not the only one who will feel let down—the red squirrels will too. As I have already said, unless something radical and imaginative is done—and an extrapolation of what we are doing now does not amount to that—Squirrel Nutkin and his friends and relations are "going to be toast".

Lord Lyell: My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I hasten to inform him that I shall not be on the 1440 train to Carlisle. I see that my noble friend Lord Jopling is attending, perhaps to listen to the excellent and wise culinary recipes that my noble friend gave. I was certainly not aware that the grey squirrel—known appropriately, I understand, as Sciurus carolinensis, so evidently named after me—came straight in from the States, and I do not know how nutritious they are.
	I want to thank my noble friend Lord Peel for putting a mild electric shock through me by insisting that there was helpful material and, indeed, that the authorities in Scotland were taking a pretty active line on the preservation of red squirrels. I declare a mild interest in that, at our estate office, we have a clan of three red squirrels while on the other side of the road—as near as I am now to the Minister—there is a clan of about seven. We have had to separate the feeding, because we have lost three over the autumn and winter. It is quite a busy road for rural Angus, but I have been able to observe, during the past three to five years, that these creatures are easily taken care of and become rather tame. Yet in all of my life at Kinnordy in rural Angus, until 20 January of this year I had not seen one grey squirrel in our area.
	My noble friend Lord Peel encouraged me to see what is being done north of the Border and my noble friend Lord Monro was absolutely right; he tells me that he gets his television from south of the Border, but nature, including squirrels, is certainly no respecter of geographical or other boundaries.
	On 27 February this year various bodies in Scotland, led by their deputy environment Minister, held a massive meeting attended by over 130 delegates. Figures produced show that about 75 per cent of the United Kingdom's red squirrel population is resident in Scotland. I was pleased to see that the Minister and others from Scottish Natural Heritage, or SNH, were keen on promoting their preservation. Indeed, Mr Colin Galbraith, director of scientific and advisory services, said:
	"We now have a list of 127 priority woodlands for red squirrel conservation".
	I am not aware whether mine are among that happy number, but before I came south for this debate I discovered, in our own estate office, a valuable little leaflet on the Scottish Squirrel Survey. It has some interesting information in it; the figures that might interest your Lordships are on weight. The survey, which has a little tear-off slip so that if you observe red or grey squirrels, you can add to the knowledge—and I hope for further action in taking care of the red squirrels—says that the average weight of a red squirrel is 275 to 305 grams, whereas the average for the grey squirrel is 540 to 660 grammes. That brings to mind a Saturday afternoon spent in front of the television set watching Six Nations rugby, where brawn tends to win—quite apart from the food. However, I am delighted that the Scottish Executive has that valuable leaflet.
	We have heard some fascinating comments and speeches today. My noble friend Lord Peel, who opened the debate, gave us a quiet introduction to squirrel pox. My noble friend Lord Monro told us exactly what grey squirrels get up to—whether doing various acts on his windscreen or not. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, told us that red squirrels are pretty tame and come into her house at their height. I hope that the Government will be able to take on board much of the information that we have been given.
	We are perhaps fortunate to have two lady Members of your Lordships' House on the speakers' list; one has spoken and my noble friend Lady Byford is about to do so. Normally, when we discuss fascinating diseases of either animal or human health, we are always regaled by "I shall not spare your Lordships' blushes". However, I shall temporarily spare your Lordships' blushes with a description of pustular dermatitis in red squirrels; we need not go into that unhappy thought today. I was a bit scared when one speaker—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—mentioned contraceptive feed for grey squirrels. I hope I have that right; that really would be fascinating. Yet if people are feeding them, I would certainly worry what any contraceptive spray or material added to the feed would do to humans. That might be pretty interesting.
	Another interesting fact has come from that conference, which took place three weeks ago in Scotland. Your Lordships will see that the subject of my noble friend's debate is the preservation of red squirrels in Britain and Europe. We have heard that there are grey squirrels in mainland Europe, in Italy. I have advice that they were introduced there in 1948 and are spreading, perhaps to France and Switzerland. I shall be on the borders of France and Switzerland in a fortnight's time. I know that that particular area is thick with red squirrels, which are very tame and need to be fed; I shall certainly be able to make inquiries there.
	I stress once again my enormous gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peel for introducing this debate. He encouraged me to see what was being done north of the Border and I am very encouraged for those of us who have woodlands—mixed, or of all types—together with their strong populations of red squirrels, which I see at the moment. In all my life in the Angus area, which is 66 years, I have seen only one grey squirrel and hope that we shall be able to chase the others out. Those of us who might be able to take part in controlling the grey squirrels will be grateful for the advice. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, can let us know whether he is in touch with the Minister in Scotland, or whether he will be able to have joint communication.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, the number 10 has a certain ring to it just at the moment, so it gives me the greatest pleasure to be the 10th speaker and to support my noble friend in his search for a real and lasting solution to the devastating decline of our red squirrel population in this country. His fount of knowledge on our countryside and conservation matters is well known to your Lordships and I very much doubt whether I can add anything to his excellent opening contribution, but I shall try.
	It is clear from my noble friend's speech, and those of other noble Lords, that I am not alone in remembering some of the wonderful Beatrix Potter books which coloured my childhood back in the late 1940s. I have recently read her biography; she was born in South Kensington, but it was not long before she found herself spending many happy holidays with her parents in the Lake District. She became a great lover of everything that the countryside had to offer, and when she died in 1943 she owned 14 farms spread over 4,000 acres of Lake District land, all of which—as I understand it—she left to the National Trust. That was her final gift to the nation; her own beloved countryside, given as a legacy for all to enjoy. If she had been alive today, I believe that she would have fought hard to keep the grey squirrel at bay from that land.
	In 1903 she wrote her third book, The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin, as referred to a number of times in this debate. She was probably hardly aware of the arrival on the scene of Sciuris carolinensis, the grey squirrel, and the danger that it posed to our native Sciuris vulgaris. How sad it is that fate decreed that our much prettier and more endearing red squirrel should be named "vulgaris". Perhaps therein lies part of the problem.
	I venture to ask your Lordships to extend your imaginations just for a moment, something which I know comes easily to most of us. If, in Beatrix Potter's 1903 book, Twinkleberry had been a nasty, pox-carrying grey cousin instead of a near and dear brother of Nutkin, we might have been alerted to the scourge of the greys and done more to mobilise our resources, keeping the numbers down before they mushroomed and contributed to wreaking so much damage on our native population.
	Sadly, one cannot rewrite history or, indeed, children's books. We must now grasp the extreme seriousness of the situation, and try to remedy it. Thankfully, there are many friends of the red squirrel, such as the Sefton Coast Partnership, which, sadly, also has a declining population of reds on that area of north-west coastline near Liverpool. As in most other areas, the greys are encroaching on their habitat and, because they are largely resistant to the dreaded parapox virus—as we have heard—they are infecting and killing our indigenous species. In carrying out research on the internet, I came across a photograph of a red squirrel suffering from the parapox virus, which I found truly horrifying. Death occurs within a few days of infection, but the lesions it creates on the eyes, organs and other sensitive areas of the body must cause agonising pain. Liverpool University is doing excellent work, helping a group called Red Alert North West by carrying out post-mortems on any dead red squirrels they come across and storing blood samples from grey squirrels, so that they can conduct research into the transfer of the disease and why its effects are so much more serious in the red population.
	The greatest challenge that confronts us, even with the knowledge thus accumulated, and assuming a vaccine could be found, is that of effectively administering it to a species which is quite shy and lives in the wild. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel, and all my noble friends who have spoken today, that the only practical way to help our dwindling red squirrel population is to dramatically reduce grey squirrel numbers. Quite apart from the threat they pose to our native species, they cause great damage to trees, kill young birds and take eggs from nests.
	However, culling greys is not as easy as it sounds. As we have already been told by other noble Lords, their breeding pattern is something on a par with rabbits and rats—indeed, they are known as tree rats by many, including myself. I shoot them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
	The stark reality is that, unless grey squirrel numbers can be dramatically reduced, the reds are ultimately doomed. We have reached a tipping point, and I hope that this short debate will help give Her Majesty's Government the will to embark on a serious effort to remedy the plight of our native squirrel before it is too late.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, this is an important debate, but I fear that the press reporting of it may be advantageous to headlines. I am sure that, were William Shakespeare in the Press Gallery, he would report someone here as having said "a pox on grey squirrels". It is that sort of subject. Grey squirrels have very good PR.
	I was intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, which verged on the production of squirrel-burgers—though that might have shades of John Gummer. I am not trying to trivialise this, but in our area a firm used to produce hedgehog crisps until about two years ago—I do not know whether they actually fried up hedgehogs and put them into the crisps. As we know, hedgehogs have disappeared, devoured by the doubling of the badger population. I am certain the badger is, in fact, the criminal which has already made hedgehogs extinct in our area in a very short time.
	I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has initiated and contributed to this debate. He has done an enormous amount of work on this subject, and is to be congratulated on it. He has worked hard with the European Squirrel Initiative; its officers and employees must be congratulated on their work—particularly Roger Cook and Andrew Kendall, the advisers. Between the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and myself, we have been able to table a lot of Questions. Many of the Answers have frankly been disappointing, hedged around with "if"s and "but"s. Very little information has come out of Defra, but this debate may stir people into action.
	I do not want to repeat everything that has been said in this debate, which is tempting, but to look at one project. Why do we campaign for red squirrels? They are quite delightful native animals of the United Kingdom. Certainly, in my boyhood in mid-Wales, I never saw a grey squirrel until the age of 13. They were unknown to me. Except from photographs and what people told me happened in London parks, I did not know much about them at all. Since the mid-1960s or so we have had no red squirrels whatever. I often wonder whether I really saw these red squirrels around me. They were such attractive animals.
	We can save their species from the precipice. In our part of the world, 30 or 40 years ago we only had about 10 pairs of red kites. A determined effort was made to save the British red kite; we even had the Gurkhas protecting the nests. Now the red kite is saved—it is in its hundreds, and has spread to England and far beyond. I want to see the same sort of thing happening to red squirrels. We know that grey squirrels are a pest. They spread disease and wipe out red squirrels. They must be tackled head on. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has asked a lot of important questions about control by culling or shooting, and the funding of research. I, too, can remember getting a shilling for grey squirrel tails; that actually halted the spread of the grey squirrel for some considerable time.
	For the rest of my time, I want to put what is happening in Anglesey on the record. I know Dr Craig Shuttleworth, who has done immense work in conjunction with Menter Môn, the enterprise agency on the island, not only to save the red squirrel there but towards the long-term aim of having a tourist attraction. The island has red squirrels, and that will I hope be an economic regenerator. As Dr Shuttleworth says, in the summer of 1997, Esmé Kirby and Lady Anglesey called a meeting of the island's landowners to begin the task of making Anglesey red squirrel country once again. This is an island where reds had been more or less extinct from about 1970 onwards.
	The first task for the Anglesey project was to remove the grey squirrels from the Pentraeth forest, owned by private landowners; and Newborough forest, owned by the Forestry Commission. To concentrate on the Pentraeth Forest, over 60 adult grey squirrels were removed in 1998; by 2000, the grey squirrel was effectively extinct. In 2001-05, only two grey squirrels have been trapped in the Pentraeth Forest. Having removed grey squirrels from Pentraeth, the small population of 30 to 40 red squirrels rapidly increased to 100. Red squirrels colonised areas of the plantation which had previously contained only grey squirrels. In 2001, red squirrels were caught in broadleaved woodland immediately adjacent to the plantation. A litter of young red squirrels was reared within a small oak and hazel-dominated woodland. It is likely that they were the only young red squirrels born in broadleaved woodland anywhere in Wales. We now have a population of only 20,000 red squirrels in Wales and 160,000 in England.
	Pentraeth is relatively isolated woodland and, as a result, red squirrels found it difficult to disperse to woodlands further afield. In order to maintain the momentum of red squirrel recovery, they were reintroduced into Newborough forest in 2004. I shall not go into that because 18 months ago squirrel pox infected the red squirrels, and they were virtually wiped out. What did the project do to ensure grey squirrel control and what is it still doing about it? How is it going about ensuring that the red squirrels emerge as the primary species in Anglesey to the exclusion of grey squirrels? Grey squirrels have been controlled on the island since 1998, but limited financial resources meant that for the first few years the project was unable to trap all the woodlands. In February 2001, the island was blighted by foot and mouth and trapping ceased until the late summer months. However, from 2002 the project was able to trap across almost the whole island. The only exception was a single estate that wished to conduct its own control. In 2005, that estate gave permission for the project to trap grey squirrels. Since 1998, the project has removed in excess of 6,000 grey squirrels. That has been done almost entirely by using live capture traps. The grey squirrels are caught alive and killed by a sharp blow to the head—perhaps that would not go down too well with some people. In 2006, it is anticipated that project staff will catch 200 to 250 grey squirrels across the island. Grey squirrels have been almost completely eradicated from Newborough and Pentraeth forests. In addition, there is a growing number of broadleaved woodlands that do not contain grey squirrels. It is difficult to estimate the number of grey squirrels that will remain at the end of 2006.
	I could go on. This is a brilliant project on the island of Anglesey. I am sure that, because of the determination in carrying it out, this project will eventually be successful. It will show the way. I may be corrected, but I believe that the Isle of Wight does not have grey squirrels because it has been ensured that that is the case. In Wales, we believe that the island of Anglesey will eventually reach that status. It is a worthy project. It will bring in tourism, it has a local support group and there are friends of the project in schools and communities on the island. That is one of the ways ahead. We must target areas where the reds exist and we must give red squirrels excellent PR—better PR than the greys—so that we can ensure that that precious inheritance in our environment remains.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Peel and congratulate him on securing this debate. I also congratulate him on the humorous way he introduced it. It did not belittle the subject in any way because it is a small but important topic. Unfortunately, the Government are failing to address it. The noble Earl gave figures for the decline of red squirrels and said that the greys are an enormous environmental pest. That was reflected by other noble Lords. In this, as in other areas, the Government tend to duck the difficult issues and tasks that need addressing. Today's debate is about controlling grey squirrels to enable red squirrels to survive. The same would be true of badgers and the control of bovine TB, which is totally out of hand in our cattle population, and the damage that foxes do regularly. The question of wildlife management does not lie comfortably with the present Government.
	I was equally disappointed by the Government's opposition to Amendment No. 293B, which I moved on the fifth day of Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. Not only did they not accept the reality of the problem, they did not even think about it again. They voted against my amendment. The Government sidestepped the opportunity to deal with the problem that my noble friend has brought before the House today. That is regrettable.
	Noble Lords have referred to their knowledge of, and reflections on, Beatrix Potter, so I shall not cover that ground again. My noble friend asked the Minister what was the cost of the enormous damage done to woodlands and what appraisal had been done. I hope that he will answer those questions in his winding-up speech.
	My noble friend Lord Inglewood and others highlighted the difficult question of squirrel pox, which is prevalent in grey squirrels. It is a nightmare for red squirrels because it kills them. I shall not follow his wish to eat grey squirrels, as yet. My noble friend Lord Kimball asked whether the Forestry Commission has wildlife officers. I hope that the Minister will give us an answer. Other noble Lords referred to funding. During the debate on my amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said:
	"Scientists from the Central Science Laboratory, Defra and the Forestry Commission will carry out research work for squirrels. They started that process in January and it will test a range of agents . . . [for] immuno-contraception".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 54.]
	The noble Baroness said "will": better late than never. As other noble Lords have said, it has been known for 60 years that there is a problem with grey squirrels yet only now are we beginning to address the difficulties that they pose for our red squirrel population, which is now down to some 160,000.
	In January this year, Jim Knight, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced the action plan to control grey squirrels in England and said:
	"It is not realistic, practical or even desirable to completely eradicate grey squirrels - but we must control them effectively now or there will be serious consequences".
	We totally agree with that. I do not think that any noble Lord called for a cull of all grey squirrels. The Minister is acknowledging the fact that nobody has called for that.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not. There were noble Lords who called for total eradication. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, did, as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise; I stand corrected. Eradication in those areas where red squirrels still manage to survive is undoubtedly needed. That is the issue that I would like the Minister to address. I understand that the Forestry Commission and English Nature have been working together and have funded a project officer for Red Alert North West to conserve red squirrels in Cumbria and that further funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund has been sought. That grant would provide funds for the management of red squirrel refuges. Will the Minister bring us up to date on that project?
	I am disappointed that—perhaps for good reasons; I am not maligning him—the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, who does so much work with the Forestry Commission, cannot be here for this debate; although he was in his place two weeks ago, he did not speak in the debate on my amendment. Even worse, he and Ministers voted against my amendment.
	My noble friend Lord Peel called attention to the decline in the number of red squirrels in Britain and Europe. What discussions have taken place between the Government and Ministers in the Scottish Parliament? Is a joint approach being taken? Several noble Lords have referred to the conference that took place in Edinburgh in February. As 70 per cent of the UK's red squirrel population is in Scotland—and squirrels have no regard for borders—it is all the more important that authorities work closely together. That conference looked at ways of tackling the threat to red squirrels. The Government were given three months in which to come up with plans. Will the Minister update us on that too?
	I understand that Scottish Natural Heritage has come forward with a list of 127 priority woodlands in which it wants to protect red squirrels from greys. Is there an equivalent designated area in England? I follow my noble friend in asking what role the JNCC is taking in co-ordinating this plan and ensuring local success.
	How is Scottish Natural Heritage progressing with its action plan, due to be published at the end of May? Is it looking at the use of a contraceptive pill, which would control future generations of grey squirrels, or is it looking rather at culling as a means of control? If it is the latter, what are the Government going to do about it?
	We have had an interesting debate, and several important points have been raised. I despair of the Government sometimes. They recognise the problem; they consult and go about bringing things forward. We know what the problem is. As other noble Lords have said, we need action to address it before the red squirrel is lost to our country.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on his securing this debate on the red squirrel. I know from my fairly brief experience of speaking for my department at this Dispatch Box of his considerable knowledge of all matters to do with the countryside. He was of great help during the passage of the Commons Bill and it does not unduly flatter him to say that he has been of great help also with the NERC Bill. I warmly congratulate him too on the way in which he introduced the debate. It has been a good humoured debate on the whole, with perhaps the odd exception. I thank the noble Earl for bringing us up to date on Beatrix Potter's characters. The best compliment that I can pay him is that he spoke to us as though he knew those characters personally. Other noble Lords too have spoken with great expertise on this topic. Squirrels both red and grey have always been the subject of passionate debate, and today's debate has been no exception. The passion of many of the contributions was clear.
	I commend the work of the Forestry Commission in the north-west of England—some noble Lords were kind enough to do that as well—under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who is extremely sorry that he was unable to be here today because of another engagement.
	The Government and I share the widespread desire that was expressed today to see the red squirrel maintained as part of our native wildlife, but it is unrealistic to expect it to become re-established across its original range, at least in the foreseeable future. What we should now be discussing is how we can preserve the remaining viable populations of red squirrel, which, rather ironically, was at one time considered a pest species.
	Although the decline in red squirrels during the past 50 years means that it is a species at risk in the UK, it is certainly not at risk—although there are some problems—in Europe. The red squirrels is protected here under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which makes it an offence intentionally to kill, injure, take or sell the animal; or to damage, destroy or obstruct access to its nesting place.
	The red squirrel is also the subject of a species action plan as part of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. It has been suggested that further legislation might help to preserve the species, but legal protection of the animal does not guarantee survival because of the natural threats—about which we have heard so much—that it faces, such as competition from grey squirrels and squirrel pox virus.
	We have to be realistic. We must address the challenge of maintaining sustainable populations of red squirrel in the locations in which they survive before we think about expansion or reintroduction. Two populations are left in England: one is in the south, on the Isle of Wight and Brownsea Island; the other is in the forests of northern England. In both regions, private landowners, local authorities and conservation bodies are working in partnership to try to save the red squirrel. The Government play a key role in those partnerships, as both a land manager and a funder, but without this wider support, they cannot succeed alone.
	On the Isle of Wight, red squirrel populations have been protected from invading grey squirrels by the natural water barrier. The Isle of Wight Red Squirrel Forum, which is led by the Isle of Wight Council, is supported by woodland owners, including the Forestry Commission and local communities and interest groups. It has led a wide range of initiatives, including monitoring the red squirrel population and providing bridges over public roads, which was raised in the debate. It has prepared contingency plans for any incursion of grey squirrels. These plans have already been successfully put to the test, fortunately by a false alarm.
	As well as managing key red squirrel habitat on the island, the Forestry Commission has made grants of around £500,000 to encourage tree-planting, which has helped create new woodland corridors between existing areas of woodland. This has increased the red squirrels' ability to move around and expand their range, as it is a species which prefers to keep to the trees rather than travel around on the ground.
	The work to maintain red squirrels on the Isle of Wight is a good illustration of what can be achieved by co-operation between local communities, local organisations and national bodies. I praise also the excellent work that is being done on Brownsea Island, where the National Trust protects the well known and popular red squirrel population.
	Co-operation between a wide range of bodies is equally important in the north. Obviously, no water barrier exists to protect the red squirrels, and greys, as we have heard, have advanced inexorably through mixed woodland during the past 20 years. Research by Newcastle University has shown that the red squirrels have the best chance of surviving in large coniferous forests that are unsuitable for greys. The Red Alert North England partnership has brought together private landowners' representatives, the wildlife trusts, national park authorities, Defra, English Nature and the Forestry Commission to preserve the remaining red squirrel populations.
	The partnership has produced the North of England red squirrel conservation strategy. Based on research evidence, it has identified 16 red squirrel reserves where it believes that the red squirrel has the best chance of long-term survival. Management plans have been produced for these reserve areas and their surrounding buffer zones to help guide landowners and managers in conserving the red squirrel. The extent to which the area is already being managed reflects the severity of the situation.
	In Kielder, England's largest forest and the biggest planned reserve, large-seeded broadleaves such as oak, which favour the grey squirrel, are no longer planted and Norway spruce is once more being planted because of its more regular cone crop in comparison to Sitka spruce. The Forestry Commission is taking action to prevent grey squirrels invading those reserves by trapping and killing them.
	I understand that the partnership is about to find out if the bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust to help deliver its plans has been successful. One of the key elements of the plan is to recruit a team to help and encourage landowners in the buffer zones to undertake control of grey squirrels. The Forestry Commission already has wildlife officers in its policy and forest enterprise arms. It is also the recognised scientific expert on grey squirrel control. The Forestry Commission also has one of the largest and most effective wildlife management workforces, with nearly 100 professional wildlife rangers carrying out practical wildlife management in our national forests, including control of grey squirrels. We are also helping with support provided by the Forestry Commission, through the English Woodland Grant Scheme, which can help with the cost of managing woodland to favour red squirrels, including culling grey squirrels. The Rural Development Service has also part funded a pilot project to identify ways of supporting grey control in the reserve buffer zones. A secondary objective is to identify ways of mitigating adverse public reaction to grey squirrel culling.
	As everyone will be aware from listening to the debate it is impossible to consider the red squirrel without considering the grey, which one way or another appears responsible, to a large extent, for the displacement of the red. The relationship between red and grey is not straightforward. It not simply a case of greys immediately driving out reds, as they have been known to live in the same area for up to 15 years, but in the end greys do displace the reds. There are believed to be many contributory factors to that process, and we have heard various explanations today. They include the fact that greys are more successful at utilising broadleaved woodland, because they are, for example, better able to digest acorns; that greys achieve much higher densities—up to 10 times that of red squirrels in broadleaved woodland; and that greys are more prolific breeders and, being more robust, are less susceptible to natural factors such as wet cold springs.
	In addition, some grey squirrels appear to carry the squirrel pox virus, which, while they appear unaffected, can have a devastating effect on red squirrels, hastening their speed of displacement by up to 20 times. We all agree that the squirrel pox virus is a very worrying development. The Forestry Commission recently organised a workshop to develop ideas for further research. The funding agencies will be looking closely at those.
	I was asked whether grey squirrels were responsible for the decline in woodland birds. Although that theory has recently gained publicity, we have little reason to think that that is the case. There is some anecdotal evidence that squirrels predate woodland bird nests, but the impact on bird populations is unknown. The issue is being looked at by the UK Woodland Bird Group, but it is difficult to design a study that would provide a definitive answer.
	It is clear to everyone that preventing grey squirrels reaching the reserve areas in England or the Isle of Wight is a priority, but culling grey squirrels where no reds are present or nearby will do nothing to help the red squirrel. It has been suggested—even in this debate—that the grey squirrel should be eradicated and it has been put forward that we have an obligation to do that as signatories to the Berne Convention. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Monro, who it is good to see back in his place, told us he was the UK signatory to that convention. We do not agree that what has been suggested is the case, nor do we support the eradication approach, even if that were possible. Why do we not support it? We do not believe that eradication is a feasible option, given current methods of control. The worldwide record on eradicating small, successful, introduced mammals is very poor. Even with new methods and unlimited resources a successful eradication policy would require the total support of the public. Evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of the public would not support a grey squirrel eradication policy. By that I mean elimination of grey squirrels.
	Article 11 of the Berne Convention requires contracting parties strictly to control the introduction of non-native species. But grey squirrels have been present in Great Britain since the end of the 19th century and were already widespread by the time the UK ratified the convention in 1982. They were about before Beatrix Potter wrote her books. Our policy for the control of grey squirrels in woodland, prepared by Defra and the Forestry Commission, was published on 22 January. It sets out a framework for controlling grey squirrels so that populations are held at a level that does not threaten our native woodlands and priority species.
	The Forest Commission has maintained programmes for the control of grey squirrels for over 40 years, involving monitoring, research, development of practical control methods, advice, training, grant support and direct action on the public forest estate. The policy builds on that work and articulates a comprehensive policy and action programme, recognises the wider impacts of grey squirrels on priority species and woodland habitats, develops a framework and rationale for targeting action where it will be most effective and promotes new areas of research.
	These new areas of research, which the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, asked about, are of particular interest, but I would start with a few words of caution for anyone who thinks that a non-lethal method of control is just around the corner. Even if a suitable immuno-contraceptive vaccine is found, we are still left with the challenge of how to deliver it to grey squirrels without affecting other wildlife, including the red squirrel. Scientists from both Defra and the Forestry Commission are following new developments overseas, particularly in the United States. They are now investigating fertility control agents for managing populations of wild animals. Work will continue, but success will not come overnight.
	Suggestions that the bounty scheme, which was so profitable to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb—we did not hear from the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, how profitable it was to him—proved, unfortunately, to be ultimately ineffective and was abandoned. As far as can be judged, it made no significant impact on the numbers, or the rate of spread, of grey squirrels. In fact, numbers may actually have increased during that period, although clearly not where the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was brought up. While reintroduction of a bounty scheme now would undoubtedly elicit praise from some, it would generate equal condemnation from others and would be seen as a departure from a humane policy of targeted pest control.
	Non-lethal population control measures on their own are not guaranteed to be an effective control and it is likely that lethal control would be needed to reduce numbers, which means killing. Before, non-lethal methods were used to maintain populations at a reduced level.
	I have talked particularly about activities in England, as responsibility for red and grey squirrels in Scotland and Wales lie with their respective administrations. However, as squirrels can and do move across the borders I can assure noble Lords that experts in the field work in close co-operation. The conference in Edinburgh was referred to. A costed action plan was a result of that and is being prepared by Scottish Natural Heritage, the Environment and Rural Affairs Department and Forestry Commission Scotland to implement the Scottish squirrel strategy, which aims to maintain viable populations of red squirrels across their current range in Scotland; 150 provisional priority areas have been identified and the list will be refined with data from a three-year national monitoring project, led by Scottish Natural Heritage, and forest planning work, led by FCS.
	In Wales there has been considerable success—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for telling us about it in detail—in saving and expanding the red squirrel population on Anglesey. This has taken the culling of over 6,500 grey squirrels. However, the greys remain and, as the noble Lord implied, it will require continued vigilance and control to keep them in check. In Europe the main area of concern is grey squirrels in Italy, which are threatening, as we heard, to spread to France and Switzerland. Over the past five years the Forestry Commission and other experts have made representations to the Italian authorities, including several visits to discuss the issues with local authorities in the areas where grey squirrels were introduced.
	More recently Defra, with support from all squirrel forums in the UK, has raised the issue with the European Commission. In June 2005, we presented a paper at the meeting of the group of experts of the Standing Committee on invasive alien species. Last December a recommendation from that meeting for the control of grey squirrels and other alien species in Europe was passed with some minor changes.

Earl Peel: My Lords—

Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will let me finish: I want to finish within my 20 minutes and to say a word about food, which was raised by a number of noble Lords: the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—with an invitation that is going to be extremely hard to refuse, although he should not see that as an acceptance—and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The advice I have received is that grey squirrels are edible; I understand that Gordon Ramsay recently cooked a grey squirrel on television and offered it to the public, but maybe that is where the problem is. Attempts have been made over the years to encourage people to eat them. It always attracts good press coverage but it has not yet caught on as a market. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, may change all that.
	Preservation of the red squirrel is not something that Government can achieve on their own, but we are taking a strong lead, and will continue to do so. Even if we fail to preserve the red squirrel on the mainland of England, we will not have given up without a fight. The passion in this House and, I suspect, of those elsewhere in the country to preserve the red squirrel is obvious.
	I was asked about grey squirrels destroying our woodland: in most cases they do not; grey squirrels strip bark and can cause severe damage to trees of 10 to 40 years of age; normally less than 5 per cent of damaged trees die, but many have reduced timber value. There has been a great deal of co-operation and joint working in this field. I want to thank all those organisations and individuals, many of whom are present in the Chamber, who are working so hard to preserve the red squirrel in the UK today.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I sincerely appreciate all those who have taken part in this debate. We have had a wide-ranging discussion on the various reasons why the red squirrel is in demise. I am glad that we all came to a comprehensive conclusion, that it is entirely because of the greys, and action clearly has to be taken. My noble friend Lord Inglewood made reference to the debate that he had in your Lordships' House in 1998. We are now in 2006, and little has happened. I urge the Government to take note. Good wishes and intentions are one thing: action is another.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, made reference to the European Squirrel Initiative. I echo what he said about the sterling work that it has carried out. I entirely agreed with my noble friend Lady Byford when she said that the difficulty is that the Government and so many of the government agencies will not face up to wildlife management issues. The Minister said that I was in favour of eradication of the grey squirrel. I said that I was in principle, but in practice I acknowledged that until we can find an alternative method the only solution is through pinpointing viable populations and ensuring that those are properly protected.
	I want to take up the Minister on the European directive. I was a little confused by his response, because he said that there was no need for the red squirrel to be protected under the Berne Convention because there was no risk to the red squirrel in Europe. He went on to describe the difficulties that the Italians were finding and that the red squirrel was moving northwards into France. I am confused about what he was trying to say. My interpretation of the situation is that in Europe there is a severe problem and they are going to face up to the same difficulties that we are facing in this country. Unless there is a move to protect the red squirrel under the European Habitats Directive my conclusion is that there will be continued difficulties in that regard.
	The Minister gave us some encouraging views on what was happening. However, at the end of the day we can have all the strategies and conservation guidelines that we want, but if there is not a co-ordinated approach embracing all interested parties with a clear determination to eradicate the grey squirrel in areas where there are still viable red populations it is not going to work. I applaud the Minister's intentions. My hope is that on the ground it will happen in practice. I also hope that the Government will continue to look towards what the Minister described as fertility control methods. I hope that they will continue to invest in those possibilities, because in the long run they will be the answer.
	I repeat how much I appreciate everyone taking part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that I was brave—maybe I am. I like to think that I am being practical, because if I am not, that delightful experience and vision given to us by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, when she talked about watching the red squirrels in Scotland, will simply go. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Territorial Army: Rebalancing

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
	"With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the Territorial Army. However, before I do so, I would like to mention the situation regarding Mr Kember. I am very pleased to confirm the involvement of British forces in the multinational rescue operation of Norman Kember. The rescue was the result of weeks of careful work and preparation, and I pay tribute to the professionalism played by British Armed Forces. To ensure that we do not compromise future operations I am not prepared to go into any details about the operation or to confirm the troops involved. However, I would like to stress how proud I am of the achievement of all of those involved in the rescue. I understand that Norman Kember is well and is presently being cared for by staff at the British Embassy in Baghdad.
	"For many months, the TA has been consulted widely over the changes we should make to better integrate it into the Future Army Structures—or FAS—which, I remind the House, we announced in November 2004. As a result, much of what I have to say will be of no surprise to TA units. Their views, at all levels, have been sought and their input has helped to define the review outcomes. I am grateful for their comprehensive engagement in this process.
	"I also inform the House that I have written today to all honourable Members whose constituency TA units are affected by this rebalancing with details of the changes to those units. I am also placing details of all the changes in the Library of the House.
	"The size of the Territorial Army will not be changed. It will remain at an authorised strength of 42,000, including a University Officer Training Corps of 3,500. Within that unaltered total, the changes that we introduce will reflect the modern-day role of the TA as an integral part of our defence posture.
	"The great change in the TA, which came about as a result of the reforms of the late 1990s, was to move it away from its Cold War role. In its place, a mobilisation culture was introduced, such that it would expect in future to be mobilised and deployed on a range of operations in support of our defence policy overseas, rather than be held in reserve for defence against an attack on western Europe.
	"Since then the reserves generally, and in particular the Territorial Army, have made a major contribution to operations overseas. For example, in Iraq we have deployed some 12,000 soldiers since 2003. They have in a real sense earned their spurs—once again. I pay tribute to their ability to adapt, in just a few years, to the changing and very demanding circumstances of the new century, and I publicly acknowledge their appreciable skills and courage.
	"The operational experience gained from extensive use of the TA has allowed us to apply lessons learnt in respect of its most effective employment. First, we are assigning to the TA its proper role in the more demanding contingencies for which it might be required to deploy. Each TA unit will be given a clear role to augment the regular order of battle for large-scale operations—that is, operations on a similar scale to the Gulf campaign in 1990 and in Iraq in 2003. That is the role for which they will train.
	"Secondly, although we will structure the TA for larger-scale operations, we will continue to support individual members of the TA who wish to volunteer for tours on operations of a lesser scale. Many soldiers indicate that they are very keen to deploy on such operations, and the experience that they gain is invaluable. At the same time, we need to regulate the use of the TA so that unnecessary strains are not put on individual volunteers, their families or their employers. So we will aim to limit the use of reserves on operations to one year in every five, unless individuals volunteer for more. Although that will be our aim, the legal position is that they can be called out once in every three years.
	"Thirdly, in designing our TA units, we will take account of the realities of TA service. There will always be some volunteers who are still going through their basic training and others who, for very good reasons, are not available for mobilisation when a particular crisis occurs. We have therefore made allowance in unit structures for both a training margin and a mobilisation margin, so that the TA units are more robustly structured to deliver the trained manpower needed for operations.
	"Fourthly, we will strengthen the affiliation of TA units to those regular units with whom they are likely to operate, thus improving mutual understanding and operational capability. Closer affiliation with regular units for training purposes will also increase joint TA and Regular training and so deliver more enjoyable, relevant and challenging training to the Territorial Army.
	"Finally, we will strengthen the support that we give to TA units, with approximately 240 permanent staff recruited to provide administration, welfare, training and employer support.
	"The organisational changes of TA rebalancing will include strengthening of the Royal Engineer element of the TA, the establishment of which will increase by some 1,600, as well as increases to the TA Yeomanry—or Royal Armoured Corps—and the Army Air Corps.
	"The following new TA units will be formed. There will be an Army Air Corps Regiment to support the Apache attack helicopter regiments in the Regular Army, to be based in Bury St Edmunds. A new Royal Engineer Regiment—72 Engineer Regiment Volunteers—will have its headquarters in Gateshead, with a re-roled Parachute Engineer Squadron in Wakefield, taking under command squadrons in Newcastle and Sheffield.
	"In addition, five new engineer squadrons will be raised in Kinloss, Cumbernauld, Failsworth, Northampton and Northern Ireland, as well as a new TA military intelligence battalion which will have five companies based across England and Scotland.
	"A military provost staff company will be formed in Colchester. That will be a new capability for the TA and will provide a deployable expertise to assist and advise in the custody of detainees. A complete new Transport Regiment will be raised in the south-west, based in Plymouth with squadrons in Truro, Dorchester and Poole.
	"As we have already announced, the TA infantry will be reduced by some 900 posts and reorganised to form 14 TA infantry battalions as an integral part of the Future Infantry Structure. We will now revert to the practice of naming TA battalions after the regular regiments of which they will form a part, rather than after the regions in which they are based. As a result of fewer volunteers being required as signallers, logisticians and combat medical staff, there will also be reductions in a number of other arms and services.
	"The changes that I have outlined will not happen overnight, but over a number of years. For many volunteers, little will change at all. Those whose units are likely to change will of course be given every opportunity to discuss, understand and make an informed decision on their future. The vast majority will, I am sure, continue to be active members of the TA.
	"Territorial Army volunteers have shown over the past century that they are extremely adaptable to the requirements of national security. The changes I have announced today will ensure that the TA continues to be a force for good in dealing with the challenges of the next century, as an integral part of our land forces. I commend them to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for letting me have an advance copy of it.
	I start by paying tribute to the TA. It does an outstanding job and the Government would not have been able to carry out operations in Iraq without its support—not only in the specialist skills that it brings but in making up the shortfall in the Regular Army caused by the reductions under this Government. I also pay tribute to the employers, without whose support the TA could not operate. In particular, we should acknowledge the contribution of small businesses, which often have to make great sacrifices when members of their staff are deployed.
	I declare an interest as an honorary colonel of a Royal Engineer TA regiment. The Royal Engineers are an important part of the Statement. I have not picked up any murmurs of dissent, which suggests that the Ministry of Defence is on the right path, certainly relating to the Royal Engineers. I, and they, especially welcome the changes to reinstate and rationalise the geographical location of Royal Engineer units.
	We on these Benches welcome the increases in the numbers of TA Yeomanry and the affiliation of TA units with those regular units with whom they are likely to operate. We agree that that will improve mutual understanding and operational capability. We also welcome the TA provost staff company initiative. It is clearly vital to define, follow and monitor the best practice in custody matters. Will the Minister say whether those with civil experience who serve in this company will support the special investigation units? We welcome the formation of a new TA Army Air Corps Regiment. Will pilots have full access to training to ensure that they are readily available to support the Regular Army Apache attack helicopter regiments? We welcome the increase in permanent staff of 240. They are the backbone of the TA, and it is imperative that they are suitably qualified and trained to provide continuous support and training.
	The manning levels of the TA are now at some of the lowest levels since the TA was founded in 1906. Yet the rate of deployment is higher than at any time in recent years. More than 13,500 men and women have left the Territorial Army since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and more than 6,000 have left in the past year alone. This translates to a rate of around 600 a month leaving the TA. Previously, about 150 left the TA every month, which kept TA levels relatively stable. Although we welcome the additional units proposed by the Government, we cannot understand the proposal to reduce some of the specialist units, such as medical staff. Last year's annual report specifically noted that this was an area of critical shortage.
	Regular units rely heavily on TA medical staff while on operations, so is it realistic that fewer medical volunteers are needed with increasing commitments? Furthermore, we fail to understand why the infantry are to lose 900 TA posts. Does this mean that 900 personnel will be looking for new units, or is this figure of 900 plucked from the shortfall, in which case we are not missing what we have never had? If it is the former, we do not accept the principle that we need fewer infantry. The Statement mentions that there will be reductions in a number of other arms and services. Can the Minister be more specific about these cuts? Finally, may we have a similar Statement on Naval and Air Force reserves before too long?

Lord Garden: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement on Territorial Army rebalancing. He says that it will be no surprise to TA units. Indeed not; it will be a relief. Uncertainty has been affecting morale for some months, and it has now ended. We on these Benches support the aims that are outlined in the Statement. It is obviously sensible to align the structure of the TA to the tasks of today rather than to those of the past. The Ministry of Defence now has a wealth of experience of recent operations to draw on to take sensible decisions about the TA.
	The TA has become more than just a reserve for emergency use; it is now an essential part of expeditionary operations. We, too, share the widespread admiration for the dedication of the TA and other Reserve Forces. However, it must involve extra expenditure. We are talking about re-roling to more expensive tasks, and we are talking about more complex tasks that will continuously involve extra manned training days. What are the extra capital costs and extra running costs involved in these proposals?
	The rebalancing exercise does not address some key issues. What assumptions is the Minister making about future manning levels of the TA? It is fine to say we will keep them at 42,000 but, as I said in your Lordships' House on 12 January, the strength of the TA at that time was only 36,940, and by the time non-operational units are taken out of the equation, the figure is closer to 32,000. The Minister rightly says that there should be a manning margin for training and mobilisation. I am astonished that this is a new concept. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why it has not been used in the past. This is not part of the Future Army Structure. We also welcome, albeit slightly guardedly, the assurances that the Government will try to limit compulsory deployments to one year in every five. I take note of the careful caveat that once in every three years remains possible. Will the Minister undertake to keep the House informed, perhaps annually, of how that target for compulsorily sending people on detachments is progressing?
	In sum, therefore, we have a Territorial Army that is to be kept the same size but is well under establishment, with an increased allowance for manning and training margins, and with an aim of less frequent deployments. This must mean that fewer people are available each year for deployment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many operational TA people he thinks he will have in a steady state in the future.
	The outline of the main organisational changes also gives rise to some questions, and I greatly welcome the focus on specialisations because they are so over-tasked in both the Territorial Army and the Regular forces. This is particularly true for engineers. A new TA engineer regiment and five new engineer squadrons will make a difference. But how long does the Minister believe it will take to be able to generate that sort of operational capability? Engineers are specialists, and they will need both aptitude and training. What analysis has been done to give confidence that these units can be formed? If that is true for Sappers, how much more true is it for the Army Air Corps Regiment and Apache helicopter pilots? We know that the AAC units often struggle with support for such a high-technology weapons system. Where are the skilled personnel to be drawn from to form this new regiment?
	We particularly welcome the military provost staff company formation, knowing of the overstretch in the military police which your Lordships have often discussed in the recent past. Will the Minister undertake to examine whether this unit might be enlarged if it proves to be successful on what is actually a small scale at company level?
	Members on these Benches feel particularly concerned about combat medical staff, to which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, drew attention. Last month's Armed Forces Pay Review Body report showed that there is a 50 per cent shortfall in Army nurses and significant shortages in Army combat medical technicians. I spoke recently to a local Liberal Democrat councillor, not very far from your Lordships' House, who had just returned from a tour in Iraq as a TA nurse. I know the good work that they are doing out there. I would have expected medical staff to be the key area that we would focus on in any restructuring of the TA. I listened to the exchange in the other place when the Statement was made, and medical staff were a focus for concern on both sides of the House. I simply do not understand how there can be any logic to reducing the staff that we have, even if we do not have enough of them. We really must know that our troops have adequate medical support when we send them into danger.
	Finally, will the Minister say how the reductions in infantry will be handled? Will it be done by natural wastage, or will there be compulsory terminations of service where transfer to new specialisations simply is not possible because of the individuals involved or because they do not want to transfer? The handling of these 900 posts will be very important for morale and hence for recruitment and retention. Perhaps the Minister can assure us that the very welcome 240 new permanent staff will receive guidance and training on how they can handle this change sensitively.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords for their clear support in welcoming this Statement and for their comments about the tremendous contribution which our Reserve Forces make to our defence. In that spirit, I appreciate the way in which they have rightly focused on questions about the specifics, and I am happy to answer those general points as clearly as I can.
	I note the noble Lords' astonishment at the slight innovation in the way in which this has been done. I think it reflects the level of innovation in the Ministry of Defence these days. We are learning lessons from the past and we are implementing them.
	The changes announced today will be cost-neutral because of the way in which we will be better able to integrate what the Reserve Forces do with the regular forces. We think that there will be appreciable savings and efficiency. It will also improve the quality and scope of the training that Reserve Forces will be able to undertake. The noble Lord raised a specific point on Apache helicopters. We will not recruit Apache pilots. These personnel will be engaged to support armouring and refuelling the Apache in the Army Air Corps.
	The noble Lords are right to focus on matters relating to medical combat personnel. This reflects the challenges in today's environment with the significant growth taking place within the NHS, for example, and the real challenge in recruiting personnel into this field. The rebalancing reflects a statement of recognition of that reality. It does not suggest that there is any diminution; it is a clear look at the specific needs of the TA as an integrated part of the one-Army concept, making sure that the rebalancing takes place within that structure. I note the positive comments on the provost company. I promise to look at how that goes. The noble Lord asked whether it will be acting in support of the SIB. Yes, that will be one of the functions of the provost company.
	I want to make absolutely clear to the House that there will not be any compulsory redundancies as a result of this rebalancing exercise. These changes will be made over a period of time. As noble Lords have said, they have been done in full consultation. We believe that there is recognition of the current operational environment. For example, skills are now required within the logistics tail of operations that more closely reflect the skills that infantrymen in the front-line forces require. We therefore believe that it will be possible for people to transition from the infantry to support roles. That reflects the reality of the operational needs we see at this time.
	I promise to keep the House informed on progress. We have set out our aspirations in terms of harmony. Noble Lords have asked me to come back to the House on a regular basis—perhaps annually—and I will do that. We believe that we can do this, but we will keep the House informed.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. On the whole, I gratefully welcome it as focusing interest on this most important part of our defence forces. It was good to hear of the recognition given in the Statement to their once again winning their spurs with no fewer than 12,000 deployed in Iraq. Of course, the one-Army concept, which the Minister has mentioned, is nothing new. When I was Commander in Chief of UK land forces 30 years ago, I struggled to make that excellent concept work. But it is good to know that there is firm political support for it now.
	In a perfect world, on the infantry side, for example, a regular battalion ought to have four companies for the job that it has to do, but for manpower limitation reasons has only three. It should be able, therefore, under certain circumstances to call on that fourth company from the territorial battalions which are now closely affiliated and integrated with the regulars, and bear the same name and cap badge. It is good to know that each TA unit will be given a definite role in large-scale operations and that, realistically and hopefully, the use of Reserves is limited to one year in five, or is it three? But it is important that a limitation like that is taken into consideration.
	It is also good to know that the established strength will be kept at 42,000, plus the important officer training corps of 3,500. But the Government must do all in their power to see that the manning is not allowed to fall much below that which it is at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has pointed out some of the dangers in that respect. The Government must ensure that money is provided properly to train the force and to equip it.
	In addition, it is good to know that within the manpower it will be possible to raise an aviation regiment of some form—a very good idea. I am rather sad that there is no opportunity to get civilian helicopter pilots into this—they might be useful and prepared in an emergency, as would engineers. I was always brought up to believe that you never had enough sappers. The Military Police and transport are of course very important.
	I do not know what is meant in the Statement by:
	"We have therefore made allowance . . . for both a training margin and a mobilisation margin".
	Perhaps the Minister could be slightly more explicit. I hope that it does not mean that a TA company commander cannot, for some reason, train his complete company on training or even, under certain circumstances, on operations. Altogether, it is a positive Statement, which focuses attention on this vital part of our defence forces. I, for one, on the whole, greatly welcome it.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who, in his wide and deep experience, is fully cognisant of the challenges which we face in modernising our Reserve Forces and in making sure that the one-Army concept, as he described, really works well. I note his comments in support of the way in which we have gone about this. I want to make two points on manning, which other noble Lords also raised. We are committed to making sure that we address recruitment and retention. In the first two months of this year, we had a 1 per cent increase in manning levels, which shows that we are making progress and that the one-Army advertising campaign for regulars and the TA has been successful.
	On the size of the force in the context of the regular Army, the current Chief of the Defence Staff made the point to me yesterday that the British Army is approximately the same size as it was at the Battle of Waterloo. Therefore, the changes which we have seen over the past 100 years or so reflect the environment as it has changed through two world wars. Despite today's challenging situation and the tempo of operations, we believe that we have a British Army fit to meet those operations because we have been innovative and prepared to make the reforms necessary.

Lord Freeman: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the United Kingdom Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. Both the uniformed and the civilian members of the TA will implement this rebalancing—it is not a reduction exercise—with every effort. Will the Minister please reflect to the general staff that we still have a great problem in officer recruitment and retention? In this rebalancing exercise, one way in which that will be ameliorated is if units that train together—officers, NCOs and soldiers—go to war together. We do not want trickle posting to be routine. We would like sub-units, or formed units, to go on active service abroad. If the Minister would convey that, I would be grateful.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on training and fighting together, which I will pass back to the command structure. I will provide an answer to him.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I, too, from this side, pay tribute to the loyalty, dedication and enthusiasm of the Territorial Army. I am concerned about medical units, an issue which has already been raised. In particular, I am concerned about the unit based at Chorley Barracks in Lancashire, which has already seen service in Iraq. Can my noble friend assure me that the future of that unit is being safeguarded and that it will remain at Chorley?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support. I do not know the specific situation relating to the Chorley unit. I will write to him.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the Minister mentioned two Scottish engineering companies. Will he confirm what else is to happen in Scotland? Are all the current TA headquarters and centres to remain? Secondly—and here I declare an interest as former Inspector General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—has the Minister any plans to change the format or numbers of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in the foreseeable future?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, my understanding is that we do not expect to make any changes in Scotland. We intend to maintain units in Orkney and Shetland, an issue raised recently. With regard to changes to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, we are looking at reforms across our services. I am not aware of any specific reforms planned for the near future. I will write to the noble Lord if there is anything I feel should be brought to his attention.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, could the Minister clarify the following point? The noble Lord, Lord Garden, pointed out that, increasingly, the TA and reservists are seen as a central part of our expeditionary forces. Consider that, historically, the TA was seen as an essential part of this country's Armed Forces and the defence of this country. Ministers from the Ministry of Defence, myself included, used to tour the country, encouraging employers to make the best people they had available in a public-spirited way. People who have important jobs simply cannot take on in any continuing way a central role in expeditionary forces. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, refers to the problem of recruiting and retaining officers and the sort of leaders we are looking for in the TA. However, most of those people will, almost by definition, have significant jobs in civilian life and are simply not available.
	I am sorry for cutting into this general atmosphere of "what a wonderful Statement," but I have been deeply worried about the TA for some time. I think the Government's expectation that the TA should be a regular and available resource for expeditionary forces, supplementing gaps that exist because of difficulties of recruitment and retention in the regular forces, is, in the long run, disastrous for the retention of a strong and resilient TA, available, ultimately, to defend our country. I hope Ministers appreciate that situation and understand that if they take on these commitments, they must principally and significantly be met by the volunteers who make up our country's regular forces. The TA must not be seen as a resource that is totally available at all times for expeditionary activities.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I accept a number of the points the noble Lord makes, drawing on his deep experience in this area. This reflects the realities of the modern world. The noble Lord highlights the difficulty of people being able to deploy on operations being consistent with their civilian duties. That is the case. However, we have concluded, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, mentioned earlier, that having a one-army approach, where Reserves are deployed as an integral part of the regular army, such that, on operations, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between a reservist and a regular soldier, is absolutely the way to go. Therefore, we also have to manage these issues, which are also of concern to us. Retention, particularly of experienced officers, is something we must manage better. We are specifically looking at those issues in order to meet the conflict between the two areas.
	Today we do not face the problem of having insufficient personnel for operations. The feedback I have received, and my own experience of talking to people in the Reserve Forces, show no shortage of volunteers to go on operations. Quite the opposite: there is a certain sense of being "well up for" the challenge. We are not facing challenges as regards the capacity required to mobilise, even given the tempo of operations we face. We recognise the issue we must manage in the long term. Ministers are aware of it and we are on the case.

Christianity and Islam

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: rose to call attention to the case for better co-operation between Christianity and Islam in international affairs; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, there are huge changes taking place in the world's demography. Populations are either decreasing in the affluent north or, because of immigration, they are at most holding steady. In the south, in Asia, Africa and Latin America, they are exploding. It is no surprise that in countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Turkey there are more and more young people. One aspect of this demographic change that is not always noticed is the rapid growth of both Christianity and Islam in these parts. Each is a missionary faith and is attracting a significant following. For example, 63 per cent of the world's Christians are now to be found in Asia, Africa and Latin America. This figure will grow to 77 per cent over the next few years.
	Muslims and Christians live cheek by jowl with one another, sometimes in peaceful co-existence but, increasingly, in acute tension. I was in northern Nigeria last year and saw for myself how cities such as Kaduna have been "cantonised". Christians live in some parts and Muslims in others. When there is a communal crisis, they cannot cross certain lines without danger to life and limb. During the unrest over the Danish cartoons, churches were burnt and people attacked in faraway Pakistan, Nigeria, Lebanon and elsewhere. There are now significant Muslim populations in western Europe and North America. This means that the threat of communal unrest is not limited to the global south but is present on every continent.
	Is this the future, then: a world where there is not only a clash of civilisations, but conflict within them? Can we think of, or dream of, another future? Muslim grievances are often concentrated on injustice in the Holy Land, Kashmir, the Balkans, Chechnya and elsewhere. Muslims have, furthermore, drawn the world's attention to the importance of faith in the core identity of persons and communities. Certainly, we need to work for justice and peace between Jew, Muslim and Christian in the Holy Land. This may be easier to grasp than we have come to think and have been led to believe. The solution to the Kashmir dispute looks more attainable now than it has for many years. Even in northern Nigeria, I met Christians and Muslims working together for peace. The countries of the Balkans could become realistic candidates for membership of the European Union. Or, of course, it could all go pear-shaped and we could be back to square one.
	On the question of the role of faith in the formation of people's identity, there is a need to strike a balance between the necessity of free speech for a free society, legal provision for protecting communities and, most importantly, a new consensus that adds religious sensitivities to such matters as the Holocaust, race or patriotism, where the media and others need to act with responsibility and circumspection. Needless to say, it is quite possible to debate serious issues, including religious ones, freely while also respecting people's beliefs.
	Scholars in the field of international relations, such as Fabio Petito and Scott Thomas, point out that we are already in a "post-Westphalian" situation. Religious traditions are refusing more and more to be confined to that private sphere to which they were consigned by the Enlightenment, and want to make a contribution to the public square. There is increasing consciousness that secular ideologies, sometimes born of Enlightenment ideas, have created as much conflict as any religious tradition and that, conversely, religious traditions can be creatively harnessed in the cause of local, regional and global peace. Governments and international organisations rely increasingly on faith-based bodies to deliver in the areas of development, social services and education. In such a rapidly changing situation it is vital that faiths should see their role as persuasive, co-operative and enabling. Noble Lords will know what the opposites of those are. How will such a vision be communicated and what will it achieve?
	It is here that dialogue is such an important word. There are different kinds of dialogue and at different levels. There is, for instance, the dialogue which concentrates on people of different faiths learning more of each other's beliefs. This is important if we are not simply to demonise the other. Such dialogue can take place between neighbours or scholars, institutionally or personally, and it can lead to better information and greater understanding. There is also the dialogue which is about the sharing of spiritual experience. Dialogue between Christians and Buddhists, or Christians and Sufis is often about the nature of spiritual awareness and its implications for the rest of life.
	There is then the kind of dialogue which is about community cohesion: how different faith communities can communicate and work together for harmonious local living. The day the police were searching homes and arresting people in the aftermath of the London bombings, I was in that very area, helping to inaugurate a centre for inter-faith meeting and working in the middle of Bradford. Surely such communication is necessary if there is to be the sort of cohesion that the Cantle report wanted.
	Then there is the dialogue about fundamental freedoms in every part of the world. This House has many stalwart champions of such freedoms. One of the most important aims of international dialogue between different faiths must be to uphold these freedoms, particularly those of belief and of conscience. This is not merely a matter of tit for tat—because Muslims, for example, have freedom to worship and to propagate their faith in western countries, it is said that Christians should be able to do the same in predominantly Muslim parts of the world—rather it is about a common commitment to certain principles which the partners in dialogue undertake to promote wherever they have influence. This week we have had the appalling news from Afghanistan about a man being threatened with execution simply because he became a Christian 14 years ago. I have been told repeatedly, over the years, by Muslim scholars and friends that there is no compulsion in matters of faith; that apostasy is punishable only in the afterlife, and that Islam respects fundamental human rights. I plead with them now to speak up for Abdur Rahman. We need to ask ourselves what kind of freedom and democracy we are promoting in that country.
	Different kinds of dialogue have different purposes. Some foster friendships among individuals, families and communities, while others address local or global issues in a more structured manner. The institutional and the personal are both necessary and, indeed, sometimes depend on one another. Because we as a Church have dialogue with al-Azhar, the premier Sunni place of learning, individual scholars from either side can benefit by studying and teaching in the institutions of the other faith.
	An area of dialogue which is urgent today is that of conflict: whether it can ever be justified in terms of criteria developed by faith traditions, and how faith communities can build for peace. I believe that many faiths have criteria which can be developed to provide moral underpinning for the international community when armed action is necessary to prevent tyranny, terrorism or genocide. At the same time, such criteria can protect those not involved in combat: the humane treatment of prisoners and responsibility for reconstruction and rehabilitation when the conflict has come to an end.
	I am glad that the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council all realise the central importance of this kind of sharply focused dialogue, both internationally and in the United Kingdom through bodies such as the Inter-Faith Network and the newly established Christian-Muslim Forum, for which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, has done so much to bring to birth. He has also been responsible for the Alexandria Peace Initiative, which brings together Muslims, Christians and Jews for the sake of peace and reconciliation in the Holy Land. He remains active in this area.
	Today is Pakistan Day, and on this day, I have to say, it is necessary also to support other initiatives such as President Musharraf's enlightened moderation. I myself am trying to persuade the government of Pakistan to establish a centre for inter-faith dialogue which would situate Pakistan's internal and external policy precisely in the light of inter-faith considerations. Support and assistance from the British Government and the High Commission would, I am sure, be most welcome. The British Institute for Persian Studies has played a remarkable part in the recovery of Iran's magnificent heritage. It is from the resources of such a heritage, as well as interaction with modernity, that the renewal of the Iranian nation will come.
	This brings us to the importance of exchange between nations and institutions. It is most important that this should be broadly based and should include people interested in culture, history, religion, and human rights and responsibilities. For too long, exchange programmes have been in thrall to science and technology narrowly defined. I am glad they are being liberated and used to foster deeper understanding of and insight into cultures, faiths and peoples. Resources put into this area will bring rich dividends in terms of peace and prosperity in many different parts of the world, including our own. I am glad this debate is taking place and I hope it will provide the Government with expertise and information which is needed for the development of policy in this area. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for initiating this extremely important debate. I can think of very few people in our country who know the two religions as well as he does. The relationship between Christianity and Islam is one of the most important issues of our time. Sometimes it is referred to directly, sometimes it is simply alluded to. When, for example, Huntington talks about the "clash of civilizations", what he has in mind and expresses very clearly is a looming conflict between Christianity and Islam. When neo-cons in the United States articulate their world view, they identify Islam as their enemy. Rather surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, this is also the view of European liberals in the circles in which I move. There is a strong feeling that liberalism historically has achieved certain very important values, including freedom of speech, respect for individuals, equality between the sexes and so on, and that Islam—not only outside the European boundary but within Europe—is beginning to threaten those values. Many liberals have even begun to talk about the "new age of barbarism" that might be upon us. For their part, many Muslims also tend to view the world in this bipolar, Manichaean way. In terms of how it perceives the world, al-Qaeda is in many ways simply a mirror image of the neo-cons in the United States.
	I want to raise two or three important questions. Why has the relationship between Christianity and Islam become so problematic? Why not other religions? I can think of at least five important reasons why the relationship has become problematic. First, both are missionary religions in a way that many others are not. Secondly, both have a long history of rivalry and struggle with each other, and these historical memories are not easily disposed of. Thirdly, both once ruled large empires and still have nostalgic memories, wondering how to restore those empires in one form or another and by what means—economic or cultural. Fourthly, Christianity and Islam are both dominant in more than a dozen countries, so that the conflict is not just between two countries but between two blocs of countries. Fifthly, both religions, unlike many others, are present in almost every country that I can think of, and so are forced to live together. Thanks to the history of colonialism, as the right reverend Prelate said, in some countries there are only two communities—Muslims and Christians—each struggling to lay down the framework within which the other should operate, as is happening in Nigeria and Sudan with Sharia.
	It is a strange irony of history that both these religions should be at each other's throat in one part of the world in particular—Israel—and in relation to the third Abrahamic religion, which is the mother of both Christianity and Islam. I think it very strange that these two religions, both of which are good daughters of Judaism, should find themselves quarrelling and falling apart precisely over what should or should not happen to Israel. As somebody who is neither a Christian nor a Muslim, I see a certain irony in that.
	If we are not careful, the conflict between the two religions and the two communities can easily get out of control. What happened on 9/11 is simply a portent of what could happen. Those of us who have lived through at least half the Cold War from 1948 to 1989 fear the prospect of embarking upon another "hot" cold war, which could last almost as long, if not longer, and which could be pretty vicious. You no longer have major powers controlling the satellites, so the danger is that that war will be fought out by the worst possible means in the streets and corners of every major city in the world.
	Therefore, this topic could not be more appropriate politically. The question that we should be asking ourselves is whether there is anything that we can do to avoid another 40, 50 or 60 years of disastrous conflict between two parts of the world, which is played out not only in those two parts but in the rest of the world as well. The right reverend Prelate rightly talked about dialogue—after all, what is the alternative to talking? I want to reiterate his point, but with some exemplary caution. Having spent a lot of time trying to understand the nature and limits of dialogue—in fact, I have completed a book on it—I want to share with your Lordships one or two thoughts on how dialogue can easily lead to more conflict rather than less. The obvious purpose of dialogue is to intensify mutual understanding. That requires that each party should be able to look at itself from the standpoint of the other and possibly learn some insights that the other might have to offer.
	In this context, I am reminded of an important dialogue that took place in the early years of the 19th century between Hindus and Christians. Christian missionaries had encountered Muslims and Jews, but they had never before systematically encountered Hindus. Therefore, when they first met Hindus, an important debate took place. The Christian missionaries asked the Hindus an important question: "Do you believe in one God or many?" They expected that the answer would be obvious. The Hindu pundits, who had trained in formidable Buddhist logic, replied immediately that the question was blasphemous and absurd. Why was it blasphemous? The answer was: "Just as you cannot attribute empirical qualities to God—whether God is short or tall, white or black—you cannot attribute quantitative predicates to God either. God can be both one or many, or could be neither or both. To assume that God must be fitted into the limited proportions of the human categories of logic is already an act of blasphemy; you are reducing God to the proportions of the human mind".
	"Pray, why is the question absurd?" The answer was: "You assume that God must be a being, a person. Is air one or many? Is energy one or many?" The Christian missionaries said: "The question is absurd". The dialogue continued: "Why is it absurd? We are not talking about a being; we are talking about an impersonal principle. Why do you assume in asking the question whether God is one or many that God must be a being? God could be an impersonal principle, in which case the question doesn't make sense. Therefore, your question is absurd and we refuse to answer it". The missionaries were obviously not prepared for this and the debate went on. For their part, Hindus began to ask questions of the missionaries. "Why did God send his only son rather than come down himself, as the Hindus believe? How cruel it would be of a god to allow his son to go through excruciating suffering. What kind of a god do you Christians have?" Or they said: "You condemn a man to heaven or hell on the basis of what he did in one life. Why don't you give him more lives? Everybody gets a second or third chance, so you ought to believe in reincarnation rather than a one-off life only".
	This debate went on and began to produce some fascinating results. But by the time the debate could be picked up in a spirit of mutual understanding, British rule had consolidated itself so deeply that the Hindus lost confidence in themselves; they began to mimic Christianity and to pretend that they were no different from Christians.
	My point is that, yes, we need dialogue, but a dialogue in which we are prepared to suspend our certainties, to question our own questions and to look at ourselves from the standpoint of the other. That is not easy for religions. If every religion believes that it is infallible—the last word of God on Earth—the question is: what can one learn from the other, apart from simply borrowing some ephemeral or unimportant ideas? We need to think a little more carefully as to how the dialogue can take place, important as it is.
	The second point that grows out of this concern with dialogue is that, although dialogue is a rational activity, reason does not function in a vacuum; it is embedded in a body of assumptions, human interests and so on. That is why it is very common, for example, for the same Muslims reading the Koran in particular historical contexts to pick and choose different sentences, different verses and different suras. Why is this happening? Why have these same texts been read differently throughout history? Why are they read in a fundamentalist way in one context but in a liberal way in another context? The answer is to do with a feeling of siege and fear, all of which you bring to bear on your reading of the text. Therefore, it is not possible to conduct a dialogue unless we also attend to the fundamental conflicts of interest which characterise the two communities. This involves, as the right reverend Prelate said, a piecemeal identification of important issues, political as well as economic, which we must go through and try to find ways of resolving.
	In this context, I want to float a third idea. It would not be a bad idea at all to do the kind of thing that we did in 1944-45 that led to the creation of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods agreement. The time has come to revisit those institutions and to ask ourselves some very fundamental questions. What new principles should govern the structure of global institutions and the relations between states? Perhaps one thing that might be worth considering is the question that the right reverend Prelate raised about freedom of speech versus freedom of religious sensibility.
	Now that I am running out of time, I want to end by sharing just one thought. Is this sort of thing likely? Is it likely that we will have a rational dialogue, peaceful resolution of conflicts of interest and so on? I am afraid that I remain deeply pessimistic for at least three reasons. First, the quality of political leadership that this calls for is, sadly, not in evidence. Secondly, conflict and war always make small people look large. Therefore, politicians of all parties and all countries have a psychological and political investment in situations of conflict and war—it wins elections. The third reason relates to the way in which we have built up structures of vested interests. In our part of the world, corporate interests have built up an exploitative arrangement with suppliers of raw materials in other countries. These corporate interests, which are sustained by a mechanism of domination, will throw all their weight behind any project that keeps the conflict growing rather than resolves it.
	But I very much hope that some message may go out from our debate. However difficult it is and however pessimistic we might feel, there is no answer other than to resolve these issues dialogically and through good political common sense.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, for introducing this debate I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who has a distinguished record in creating inter-faith dialogues and discussions. I follow with humility his speech and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. They are clearly expert and have thought deeply on these matters.
	I want to talk briefly about three things. The first of those is the profound difference between a state that is essentially secular and a state that is essentially religious. Most of us in the western part of Europe and in the United States have long since come to live with the concept of the separation of state from religion. In some cases, like that of the United States or the constitution of France, this is written into the law—there has to be a separation of state from religion. That does not mean that there is no religion, but means that the gap is maintained carefully in terms of the practices of the government and authorities.
	It is difficult for somebody from a Muslim background to accept the concept of the secularisation of the state. One could go a little further. It is difficult for the western mind to accept and to recognise that in many Muslim countries secularisation is almost indissolubly linked with colonialism. It is perceived to be part of what was brought by the Christian colonialists and by the secular agnostics and atheists who went alongside them. From the word go, so to speak, secularisation was profoundly suspect.
	The question then is whether there is any link that can be made that will bring the two sides of this discussion together. A good example is the cartoons that were produced in the Danish newspapers. To the deeply secular state of Denmark, the characterisation of the Prophet in a cartoon that appeared to be suggesting that the Prophet had close links with disagreeable and even evil ambitions was just part of the usual joking about religion characteristic of all secular states. We long ago put away such concepts as sacrilege and blasphemy, and we are moving further in that direction.
	A brilliant Muslim scholar, who I had the privilege of hearing only a day or two ago, made an extraordinarily important distinction. He accepted that in a society with freedom of speech and expression at its centre one cannot attempt to make illegal cartoons of this kind or to bring the civil law to bear upon them. He said that what many of the people who did not understand the reactions to those cartoons failed to grasp was that, essentially, one can believe in freedom of speech, but also believe in respect for other human beings, as the right reverend Prelate put it. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, also said that.
	It was the lack of respect for the Muslim community that made so many Muslims feel so passionate about those cartoons—even Muslims of a liberal and highly educated disposition. It was so much part of the recent history of relations with the western world. I do not say the Christian world, as it is not so true of the Church of South India or the Catholics of Malaysia or what have you. It is particularly true of the not-always-accurate identification of western governments with Christianity. Many western governments would feel uncomfortable with that attempt to identify them so.
	For my second point, let me try to put us in the shoes of a thoughtful Muslim in virtually any country of the Muslim world. Let us look from that space at the west, instead of, as we usually do, the other way round. What would I see? Let us take only the past 20 years.
	I would have seen that the worst and most cold-blooded massacre in western Europe since the end of the Second World War, the atrocity at Srebrenica, did not arouse any great sense of outrage and disgust in the western world. It took quite a long time for that to sink in. It did not arouse anger at the failure of the international community to stop a war against a highly integrated and tolerant Muslim minority, in the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I continue to look at the story.
	Next I note the bloody war between Iraq and Iran—in terms of casualties and dead, as bad proportionately as the First World War was in western Europe. The west never attempted to intervene to end that war, but rather intervened to sustain it. The arrangements under which Iraq was provided with weapons to direct against an Iran that was technically at least a generation behind and used human bodies as its essential defence was something that, had it happened to a western European country, we would regard as simply disgusting. We would ask ourselves how that could have been brought about.
	We next look at Iran, a country that feels bitterly misunderstood at the present time. What has not been discussed in this House at any point that I know of when we have talked about the crisis over Iran, is that Iran took over the leadership of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan from the assassinated leader and then succeeded in sustaining the offensive against the Taliban. Iran is as much a bringer-about of the change in Afghanistan today as ever the United States or the United Kingdom. Does one ever hear that? No, one does not. On the contrary, Iran is arraigned as yet another potential terrorist state; that was done, for example, in President Bush's devastatingly disastrous lecture on the subject of the "axis of evil".
	Another example of Iran is a paradoxical one—how at the present time the highly intelligent and thoughtful ambassador of the United States in Baghdad is seeking the advice and help of the leaders of Iran in order to try and avoid a civil war in Iraq. Do we ever give any credit to Iran for playing this crucial role? No, we do not. We see Iran not only as a potential enemy, but as very close to being an actual enemy.
	It would have been so much easier to deal with the admitted crisis over the development of nuclear weapons in Iran if we had built up some sense of trust and belief in us in that country well before it started on this troubling process. But Iran has read in the runes that nobody is now threatening North Korea—a country that is known to have nuclear weapons—in the way that Iran is being threatened. It is not a very good analogy to draw.
	I give a couple more examples of this consistent history of the attitude of the western world to the Muslim world by touching upon the situation of Palestine, which has already been mentioned. What is increasingly emerging is that all of us are playing into a hypocritical piece of foreign policy, in which we talk about the two-state solution, as if there is any remote chance of the second state being economically, politically or socially viable. We are looking at the creation—we know it—of a dependency in the Middle East, not of a viable, independent state. That is recognised in the Islamic world, but not so recognised in the western world, which wants the whole situation to go away.
	The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, asked what we could do about it. Let me give a few instances of what we could do about it. The first of those is that we need to look again—how current this is—at our national curriculum.
	The national curriculum is rightly so named. It is a very national curriculum. We no longer require our children to learn even one foreign language, let alone two. We no longer study the history of other civilisations. If we did, then our children would have some dim recognition that, in Islam, we are talking about a very great civilisation indeed, albeit one that has not moved as rapidly as ours towards modernisation. Anyone who loves architecture, art or the beauty of the Earth, quite apart from algebra, astronomy and other long steps forward in science, will be conscious that this is not some remote, primitive people, but rather a civilisation with a great history.
	The young soldier who allowed his dog to savage the prisoners at Abu Ghraib probably had no idea how a dog is seen in Muslim civilisation. He would not have liked it very much if a poisonous snake had been pointed at him. On the part of that young soldier there was simply no awareness at all of what a dog means beyond its ability to bite, growl at or scar another person.
	Equally in our own national curriculum we simply walk past this whole area of the world as if it hardly existed. One of the key things we need to do is to look again at our national curriculum regarding how we educate children to be part of a world which is mutually understanding and mutually tolerant.
	The BBC has recently been conceded a new charter by Parliament. The BBC is a very powerful educational tool. It would be wonderful if the BBC could be persuaded to do about Islam the kind of programmes that it has so brilliantly done about, for example, India; they gave many people in this country some sense of that extraordinary country's history and possible future.
	Those are some of the things that I believe we can do which involve not just talking about talking together but recognising, as a state, our own need to contribute and to change.
	Finally, I refer to the most serious problem that confronts all of us, which is not even the potential clash of civilisations, although, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said, that is an extremely dangerous possibility. The more immediate possibility is that we destroy this planet within the next 25 years irreversibly and irremediably. The issue of how we deal with that—we have not got very long; at most a generation—is one which binds together the peoples of this Earth and its civilisations. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, hinted, we need not only the dialogue but also the discussion of international law and international initiatives within the structure of international organisations, whether the UN, the WTO or the World Meteorological Organisation, to bring home the common interest of all our peoples; that is, the planet on which we live, crowded though it be. Given that Islam now comprises a religion where half of its members are under the age of 25, that kind of appeal might well allow us to build bridges between the new generations of Christians, Muslims and the other religions of the world.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate. Each speaker has 10 minutes. I urge noble Lords to finish speaking before the clock shows 10 minutes.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, when the Cold War ended more than 15 years ago it certainly seemed at the time as if politics based on ideology or religion had reached the end of the road too. It was that as much as anything else which led an American professor rather unwisely to proclaim the end of history. But it has not quite turned out that way. Instead of the triumph of secular humanism we have seen religion, often highly distorted, even perverted, versions of religion, playing an increasing role in politics, including in international affairs.
	We have seen assassination and indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens undertaken in the name of religion and we have seen cultural differences which had seemed to be converging under the impact of globalisation in fact diverging again towards a degree of polarisation of which we have no experience in modern times. These are surely not trends we can afford to stand aside from and simply allow to develop further. So the debate today initiated by the right reverend Prelate is a timely and necessary one, even if the subject needs, as I believe it does, to be approached with some degree of caution. There I echo a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and for many of the same reasons.
	The first need for caution is to avoid appearing to lump all Muslims together as if they were some kind of seamless grouping, which they are not, any more than Christians are. It is that which we at least seem to do when we speak about Muslim or Islamic fundamentalism. That there are Muslims who are fundamentalists and who seek to achieve political ends by means of indiscriminate violence is not in doubt, but then there are Jews and Christians who pursue a similar track, and even Hindus who do so. It does not help discuss these issues in a dispassionate and calm atmosphere if we appear to assume that fundamentalism is some problem unique to Islam which is rooted in the nature of their religion and not ours. It is as if the appalling excesses of the wars of religion in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries were to be attributed to the nature of the Christian religion, which we would surely find exceedingly offensive and wrong-headed.
	Secondly, I suggest that it is unwise to imply that recent developments are ones that need to be discussed, debated or even resolved between Muslims and Christians exclusively. Not only does that exclude the followers of other major religions—Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Sikhs—and those who follow none, but it also risks falling into the pattern established by the extremists among the Muslims themselves; that is to say, to treat modern history as a resumption of the Crusades, as a titanic struggle between, on the one hand the faithful, and on the other the rapacious inroads of militant Christianity. The clash of civilisations is their tune, not ours; and while we may try to opt, as the former president Khatami of Iran did, for a dialogue of civilisations rather than a clash, we need to be aware of the risk of even such a dialogue eliding into and being seen by others as a clash.
	When one comes to international affairs it is important to remember just how many countries where Muslims form the majority of the population organise their politics on the basis of a firmly secular state, as indeed do most countries where Christians form a majority of the population. The two largest Muslim democracies, Turkey and Indonesia, are most clearly organised in that way and they are very attached to retaining that basis and to avoiding slipping towards structures such as those of the Islamic Republic of Iran or Pakistan. It is certainly not in our interest that they should move in that direction. Those countries do not organise their foreign policies on the basis of religious orientation, which is one reason why the Organisation of the Islamic Conference remains one of the loosest and least homogeneous of international organisations. We should not forget either that many of the main issues of international public policy which require a solution—whether we are talking of Palestine, Kashmir or the distribution of economic wealth and activity in the world—are matters which remain in the hands of states and must be resolved by them and not by religions, even if there is often a religious dimension to such disputes. Indeed, we may be on the verge of finding in the case of Palestine that solutions become even more elusive when the functions of government are taken over by those who organise their activity on a religious foundation.
	All that may sound a bit negative to the right reverend Prelate who initiated the debate and I apologise for that if it seems so. But it is better, I would argue, to be well aware, as I am sure he is, of the risks and potential pitfalls in advance. Nothing illustrates that better than the recent furore over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Those who published the cartoons defended their actions in the name of freedom of speech and expression and the right to criticise other religions—ideas which all of us in the West regard as fundamental to our societies. But those actions, and the defence of them, were seen as deeply offensive by many Muslims worldwide, and when contrasted with the prison sentence passed on Mr David Irving in Austria, as deeply hypocritical, as a case of double standards. Those who have benefited most from the furore have, of course, been the extremists themselves and those governments which have opportunistically exploited the events to their own ends.
	My own view is that the British press, which decided quite freely not to publish the cartoons, acted with great wisdom and restraint—two qualities not always associated with it. This is a period when the voluntary acceptance of some constraints on what is said or depicted on matters of religion could be the most responsible course to take, even though it will no doubt be assailed immediately by some as creeping self-censorship. I found myself therefore in firm agreement on this point with His Royal Highness Prince Charles in the speech that he made in Cairo this week.
	Do those caveats leave no place for the better co-operation between Christianity and Islam in international affairs for which the right reverend Prelate is calling? Certainly not. I am sure that the way each of us handles the treatment of the other's co-religionists in the many countries where they are a minority living among a majority of the other religion is something that urgently needs consideration. I am sure that our governments need all the help they can get in working towards solutions for the long-running and festering international disputes that I have mentioned. I am sure that the discussion of the role that religion could play in politics and politics in religion, while it will not bring agreement, may promote a better understand of the different attitudes towards these difficult and highly sensitive matters. It will, I suspect, be some time before we emerge into calmer waters where mutual tolerance again gains the upper hand over confrontation. Meanwhile, it will be important to continue to assert that that is our fundamental objective and to demonstrate it through dialogue and co-operation.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for introducing this debate at this crucial time. Surely what this country now so badly needs, particularly in the Middle East, is a new, coherent, well thought-through foreign and defence policy, in which, as a Christian country in which also live and prosper many other faiths with strong historic and economic ties with the Muslim world, we would then be in the best position to act and encourage others to act, as the right reverend Prelate advocates. No one in their right mind would pretend that we have a coherent policy at the moment. Indeed, it has been sad on occasions to see two great departments of state, Foreign and Commonwealth and Defence, virtually sidetracked in a political and special relationship rush to follow the American interventionist line and its painful and ill thought-through aftermath. As a result, we have stumbled into our diplomacy on the back of 9/11; on a determination for whatever reason—good or bad, valid or invalid—to effect a regime change in Iraq, leading to lack of priority focus on the crucial Israel-Palestine problem, to some disruption of the established balance of power in the area, and to an increase in local terrorism. Later, desperately clutching at straws of respectability, it has centred on putting perhaps undue and even premature emphasis on the cultivation of the frail shoots of democracy in none too fertile soil.
	We are now, it is generally agreed, in a difficult position and we need to adjust our approach with as much amour propre and good will as possible. But surely the best way to do this quickly is to get back to a more enlightened and historically realistic policy in which military force supports diplomacy and does not determine it, and in which we take advantage of the good will that we—sadly unlike the Americans—can still call on in the Middle East and then help friends to help themselves. We need a policy that is dynamic but which indulges more in the language of co-operation, dialogue and mutual respect and less in that of confrontation. Of course, there are problems to be faced up to and resolved. Although historically possession leading to an area balance of nuclear weapons has proved more a guarantee of peace than a trigger for war and mass destruction, Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and its movement towards possession must be a cause for concern to the UN and to all neighbouring countries, particularly when accompanied by most intemperate language by Iran's president, which is not I suspect wholly in line with the views of the Iranian people.
	Hamas, with its record of violence and its totally unacceptable threats to the future of Israel, is now legitimately in a position to form the government of the Palestinians and is therefore firmly in the equation of meaningful negotiations. I seem to remember at the height of the Cold War Nikita Khrushchev threatened to "bury capitalism". However, you could argue, and perhaps now most people would argue, that had we resisted the temptation to invade Iraq and instead put the priority of Western and particularly American influence on expediting the so-called road map, or some version passing for it, Hamas might not have won the election.
	Then it is being noised abroad that some sort of ideological and religious conflict exists between Islam and Christianity as there was in the Cold War between capitalism and communism. I would not make too much of that, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Hannay, as any confrontation that there appears to be may much more reflect disenchantment and resentment over what is held to be excessive intrusion of Western influence and military presence in the Middle East than it does any religious hostility, particularly when there is so much commonality between the faiths. In any case, such thoughts would seem more appropriate to the ramblings and rabble-rousing of Osama bin Laden, and we would hardly want to make it any easier for him by encouraging those ideas.
	For whatever reason, there has emerged in the Middle East a militant and particularly dangerous and violent form of international terrorism which we must and I believe we can learn both to live with and deal with. The world remains an uncertain place; there can therefore be no dropping of our guard or weakening of our alertness or our determination to protect our people and vital interests. We need to take all sensible steps to improve intelligence with the help of friends, enhance our protection and speed of reaction to terrorist and criminal acts, and continue to succour our Armed Forces, incomparable in peace and war, as an insurance as to what the future may hold.
	All those problems can be dealt with more effectively and within the rule of law by developing a realistic foreign policy that fully takes account of local sensitivities, is prepared to help those who seek it with advice and aid to help them help themselves, and is generally more prepared to infuse those ideas that help to free and enhance the human spirit rather than try to dictate and impose them. We need a moderation of power except in self defence or as a last resort as applied both in the Falklands and the first Gulf War and a greater emphasis on co-operation and reconciliation. That surely must be an alternative and the correct way forward and indeed it should be the Christian way, which is why the right reverend Prelate's exhortations and initiatives are so important and should be so warmly welcomed.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, I am aware that I am following those who have had military, diplomatic, political, philosophical and prelatical experience, and my contribution will be perhaps more from the street level. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for initiating this debate, although I have had difficulty in defining the terms within which it is set. Christianity and Islam can easily become weasel words. I am mindful of Edward Said's wonderful book Orientalism and the danger of taking global or general words under which hide people from other persuasions that one simply wants to agglomerate under that title. I have recently read Reza Aslan's rather splendid book No God But God in which he puts from a Muslim point of view his version of events as to whether there is to be a clash of civilisations. He urges those of a non-Muslim background to recognise that the great ferment that is happening at the moment is happening within the world of Islam and is about who has the right to write the next chapter in the history of that community. We should always therefore be rather careful about using such general words.
	I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for being brave enough to put herself in a Muslim position and argue as if she were in a Muslim's shoes. It is a difficult thing to do and some salient insights emerged from her readiness to do that. I have done it rather more modestly by reading Islamic literature as best I can—the wonderful three novels of Naguib Mahfouz, for example, about life in Egypt in the 1950s, showing how a cultured, humane, wonderfully altogether Muslim family living by its traditional values could produce two generations later a radicalised young Muslim prepared to give his life for his cause. The unfolding of the pages of that story were in themselves enlightening to me, who would not have the courage to put myself in the Muslim position but tries to listen to Muslim voices as they describe their situation.
	In the terms in which this debate is set, the word co-operation occurs and I do not think that anybody in this House could be against that. Co-operation is something that we all want, but how? Nobody involved in conflict resolution, international diplomacy or relief and development work say 20 years ago could have envisaged, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned, the role that religion would come to assume so many years later. When Hans Küng: my theologian of choice, made his clarion call in 1990,
	"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions",
	he was a voice crying in the wilderness. Yet now that is precisely where the debate is. Incidentally, to reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in advocating the place of religion in contemporary discussion nobody ever wants religion to take the place of the state and usurp its role, but it can and must make a legitimate contribution at times of difficulty such as these.
	Religion simply has to be factored into a troubleshooting, problem solving, justice seeking mechanism in a more proportionate way than it sometimes is. Christianity has a problem in this regard. There are perceptions of it abroad that it has to deal with whether they are just or unjust. Christianity is linked uncritically in many minds with what is described as western militarism or imperialism. Those who seek an enhanced role from a Christian point of view need great self awareness as they do so and even more patience and resilience as they undertake such a role. There may be inaccuracies in the perception—but they exist and they have to be dealt with. That is very much in evidence, although many lessons have to be learnt by Christians about how they conduct themselves in inter-religious and interfaith debates. As a Christian myself, I want to release Jesus from the polemic uses to which he has been put so that we may hear again his teaching and enjoy it and respond to it.
	A number of things are happening and I want to allude to these very briefly, because it is good to put a positive spin on things wherever possible. At the level of international diplomacy and international affairs—the level at which this debate is set—we should learn from the role of those in Northern Ireland who played the religious card effectively. We know about those who did not; who misused the religious card. But the redemptorist fathers from the Clonard Monastery and the Methodist and other Protestant ministers who kept channels of communication open between the various factions by running across the conventional lines that separated people played a signal part in helping to create different possibilities. The work in the Middle East by Canon Andrew White of Coventry Cathedral is another case in point.
	Secondly, in issues of global importance, post-conflict peace building, inter-religious councils and truth and reconciliation commissions are all being put together in a multifaith way under the aegis of the world conference of religions for peace. That has the backing of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and others of that ilk. Such initiatives are under way and, to pick up the point that was mentioned with some urgency by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation, which is a secular and religious alliance, is keeping the environmental debate high on the agenda and pointing to the need for people in the different faith groups to gather round the agenda set by those needs.
	In terms of relief and development, there is the World Faith Development Dialogue, which harmonises programmes and efforts relating to development between world faiths and which was set up by James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, from our own number. There is the inclusion of the Islamic relief in the Disasters Emergency Committee, whose case was brought forward by organisations such as Christian Aid. It now plays its full part in the response to the dreadful emergencies that afflict us only too often.
	Then there is humanitarian need. Today we have heard of the release of Norman Kember and his associates and we rejoice at that. He is a good Christian man, but we must remember the key role played by Dr Azzam Tamimi when representing the Muslim Association of Britain. He went out to Iraq to see what could be done and to start discussions taking place—sometimes behind the scenes.
	I return to Hans Küng, who said:
	"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions".
	But he went on to say:
	"There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions".
	I pick up my own concerns about the possible ambiguities in the use of the word "dialogue", which, like "tolerance", can be a weasel word. I also want to question my own questions. I want to look again at any box I may have allowed myself to become imprisoned in, to take a creative look at new options that might be available to us.
	I have come to believe that international peace, like charity, actually begins at home. I rushed here today from a conversation with the director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations (Cambridge), Dr Ed Kessler. What wonderful things he is opening up there. Two weeks ago, it was a public conversation with the director of Islamic Studies at Oxford University and so on and so forth. The public drawn from offices around where I live discuss issues such as the ones I am talking about. We are up to our eyes in the Islington interfaith forum. Because we have a historic site, we have Muslim children from local schools who come to visit our chapel and enjoy learning about Christianity in a school visit of that kind, just as I have been part of Christian children visiting mosques and temples and the rest of it. I am a school governor and we talk about appropriate school meals for children of other cultural backgrounds. These practical, ordinary, everyday things are terrifically important. My own daughter-in-law, having had three years in Pakistan herself, oversees the culturally aware teaching of the whole curriculum in the little primary school in Newham where she teaches.
	There is much to be done at home, but the 10 minutes that we were warned of is up, and I am a man who takes warnings seriously. Things are being done, and we must rejoice at that. There is so much more to do, but if we approach a question like this positively, who knows what we may wrestle out of what might otherwise be chaos?

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am not a Christian, a Muslim or an adherent of any religion. In taking part in this debate, I therefore feel rather like a lion in a den of Daniels. Sometimes it is suggested that only religious people can understand religion and should therefore debate it. I am sure none of your Lordships thinks that, which is like saying that only women can discuss feminism.
	Although I am no believer, I acknowledge that religion gives meaning to many people's lives and can inspire them to do great things for mankind. Many of the ethical injunctions of Mohammed would—if practised—make the world a much better place, while I have always regarded the Sermon on the Mount as one of the outstanding moral texts of our culture. At the same time, parts of the Bible show Jehovah to be a jealous, vengeful and brutal God while parts of the Koran and the Hadith preach a morality that I find repellent. Religion has done and does much good, and much harm; it has relieved and relieves much suffering, and has caused and causes it. The issue is how the positive and tolerant elements in both religions under discussion can overcome the negative and intolerant ones. That depends on how far secular Christianity and what I see as modern, secular Islam can contain and overcome fundamentalism.
	Currently, fundamentalism is in the ascendant. That is something we must recognise. In the United States, Christian fundamentalism has a powerful influence on the Bush administration, though fortunately less pervasive than some suggest. Some members of that administration could be better described as Hobbesian rather than holy rollers. Yet there seems little doubt that the influence of fundamentalist evangelicals has increased in the last decade. Creationism is on the rise and has even raised its head in Britain, where the evangelical wing of the Church of England—less fundamentalist, I accept, than its American counterpart—is certainly gaining influence.
	As for the Muslim world, I have long thought that we have underestimated the effect of the Iranian revolution of 1979, which gave a national base to revolutionary, theocratic and fundamentalist Islam. I agree with my noble friend Lady Williams that matters can be over-simplified, but on the whole this regime is far less likely to be swayed by rational consideration than we tend to assume—or, certainly, than Jack Straw seems to realise. As I have argued elsewhere, just as Lenin's rise to power in Russia provided a national base for international Marxism, so the coming to power of the mullahs in Iran has provided a base for fundamentalism. Events since 9/11—including, I am sorry to say, our own invasion of Iraq—have only strengthened the forces of fundamentalism.
	How, then, can we control them? What worries me is the reluctance of many tolerant Christians and Muslims to denounce the excesses of their fundamentalist co-religionists, and some of the doctrines that they preach. How many Churchmen have attacked the Vatican and American fundamentalists for their opposition to contraception? The effect has been an effective ban on promoting condoms by international agencies. That prevents action against AIDS; by helping to spread AIDS, it is likely to cause the death of tens of millions of people—a disastrous consequence of the dogma of some in the Catholic Church and of fundamental, born-again Christians. Indeed, sometimes I ask, as Katharine Whitehorn has done, why one so often wishes that born-again people had not been born the first time. One could also add that the harm done by Christian Zionists who support and help the spread of Jewish settlements in Palestine has created one of the biggest obstacles to peace.
	Why do we not see more public denunciation—although there is some—by tolerant, secular Muslims of Sharia law and its effect on women, and the suppression of women's rights in the theocracies of the world? The outcry is often somewhat muted. Certainly, the reaction to the fatwa declared against Salman Rushdie was muted. There is also a lack of clarity in the interpretation of certain passages in the Koran and the Hadith, suggesting that apostasy deserves death. It is notable how few Muslims defect. There are plenty of Protestants and Catholics who abandon their religion, as one would expect in the normal course of events, but there are very few Muslims. Part of the reason is fear.
	We are seeing a steady increase in the influence of religion. The Government have declared their support for faith schools. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh—who I am sorry to see is absent, and who made an absolutely first-class speech—pointed out, at a meeting I attended last night, that there has been a change in the attitude of Muslims over the last 30 years. If you asked a Muslim "Who are you?" 30 years ago, he would have said "I am a Pakistani" or "I am an Indian"; "I am a Marxist" or "I am a Conservative"; "I am a carpenter" or "I am a sociologist". Now, however, it is much more likely that he or she will identify him or herself as a Muslim by religion.
	Definition by religion does not, on the whole, lead people to adopt a secular view of Islam. Those who identify themselves by their religion are likely to believe that the Koran is literally the word of God. The trouble with the belief that sacred texts are the word of God is that you cannot argue with them. You can say that philosophy sometimes raises questions which have no answer, or which you may not answer; but religion often means answers which may not be questioned. Belief in sacred texts implies certainty. It leaves little room for doubt. One of the reasons I am against the spread of faith schools is that they persuade children to believe rather than to question. The essence of a liberal education is that children should be taught to ask questions.
	My hero is Socrates, the grand questioner and arch-enemy of fundamentalism. One of the most glorious events in the history of civilisation was the Enlightenment, when certainties were replaced by doubt. It was the birth of modern science, which does not deal with certainties. We are currently seeing a retreat from Enlightenment values. If you know you are right and admit no possibility that you are mistaken, then you are an enemy of tolerance. Doubt is the opposition to dogma, and is essential to the workings of an effective democracy.
	I do not argue that religious leaders do not promote tolerance; of course not. We have the example of the admirable speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester at the start of this debate. I do not think there is a more tolerant body of men than the Bishops in this House. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a splendidly undogmatic figure. Many statements of those who argue for a secular, democratic Islam—as does the opposition to the present regime in Iran, which we have proscribed—likewise show every degree of tolerance. Unless religious leaders face fundamentalism head on, however, the rise in the influence of religion is unlikely to enhance the prospect of greater understanding and peace.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, in line with many noble Lords today, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for bringing one of the most fundamental and pressing issues in international relations today to the attention of this House.
	Perhaps it would be appropriate to begin from these Benches by conceding to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that both Christianity and Islam—and, indeed, most of the world's great religions—have the potential to create immense danger for the world. All religions claim to mediate the absolute. It is easy to topple over the brink and identify that absolute with the finite and fallible human structures through which that absolute is disclosed to human beings. In short, our religions can reinforce countries, communities, organisations and individuals in being impervious to criticism.
	However, I assert that both Christianity and Islam also have within their traditions the very roots of what the world needs to build peace. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out, they have within them the resources to address the greatest questions facing the human race today. The patient learning of how to do that is most easily found on the streets and neighbourhoods of our diverse cities.
	If it is true to say that the local is becoming globalised, it is simultaneously the case that the global is becoming localised. That is why it was important for this debate to begin with reference to the demography that lies behind these questions. The impact of tensions around the world is felt on the streets of many of our cities, not least in my own city of Leicester. We are living at a time when the pushes and pulls that prompt migration are especially intense. Present conditions of global inequality, commercial expansion, environmental degradation, oppression, war and famine, together with new opportunities for mobility and communication, all drive uniquely large flows of people. Globalisation, with its reduction of the constraints of geography and its web of instant communication, might initially seem to suggest that localities would become increasingly homogenous. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that globalisation has not eradicated local cultural diversity. In cities around the world, people are encountering the challenges of living in distinctive places marked increasingly by many forms of diversity. That leads to a new significance for the local in a globalising world. Global events affect local politics and local collective actions. An obvious example from my own city is that control of Leicester City Council changed hands as a direct consequence of Muslim reaction to the invasion of Iraq three years ago.
	International affairs everywhere affect feelings of identity and security, especially among urban dwellers who often already have high levels of fear, anxiety and uncertainty. What therefore needs to concentrate the mind of this House is how foreign policy and domestic policy interact in that area. It is not just security on the streets of Baghdad, Jerusalem or Kabul that are affected by the stance of Her Majesty's Government, but that on the streets of Leicester, Bradford, Birmingham and London.
	It is the case that faith groups in any of our cities are likely to be touchstones of international opinion. Within their memberships, they have networks spreading across the world. That makes them especially sensitive to violence and accident wherever they hear of it. In my own city, that has caused us to work hard at creating a rapid response to emergency. Within 36 hours of the attacks in London on 7 July last year, faith and community leaders were able to meet, consider the implications for our own communities and commit ourselves to staying in close touch with each other and with the security services. It is that careful, often laborious, time-consuming yet patient building of trust and confidence in localities that has to be part of the way in which the building blocks of a new international order can be created.
	Sometimes the response of faith groups to emergency can include the raising of relief funds and gifts in kind, which makes a considerable impact in bridging community divides. In Leicester, large sums of money were raised for the victims of the Gujarat earthquake from the Christian and the Muslim communities. In Birmingham, a similar effort was made for the relief of those suffering and dying in Bosnia several years ago.
	Agreement on certain fixed principles is essential to the building of the kind of trust that is needed both locally and globally if the challenges of a new millennium are to be met. One decision we have made in Leicester is that an attack on one of our faiths should be seen as an attack on all of them, whether a building or a person is a victim. How we then act together depends on the circumstances, but that gives each faith the security that they can bring their concerns to the others when they have been hurt. That principle was elucidated after 9/11 when local Muslims were being insulted and Muslim women were often afraid to put their scarves on for fear of being singled out. Sikhs were also being victimised, since many people are ignorant of the difference between faiths, as we know. When Muslim graves have been repeatedly desecrated, support has been shown by Christians and Jews alike.
	Various speakers in this debate have listed the world's conflicts: in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Gujarat, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, north-east India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kosovo, Nigeria and Sudan. The list goes on. In many of those places, it is possible to find evidence that religions can react to events together and have the potential to act as a moderating and reconciling, rather than inflammatory, influence. In those areas, learning is often done in the crucible of diverse urban neighbourhoods. As other noble Lords have said, it is being done especially through dialogue at every level. We need to ensure that ideologies of isolation, competition or conflict give way to the ideology of dialogue, and that faiths see conversation about how their communities cohere as intrinsic to their very identity.
	We are coming to see that building and sustaining prior relationships are essential to finding our way through crises. Regular face-to-face meetings, kept in good repair and sustained routinely, are vital. Rapid response is of the essence if anxieties and speculations, fed by the media, are to be well managed. Collective statements which speak out of the deep roots of our different religious traditions can have a cumulative effect of showing that Christians and Muslims are determined not to be divided.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has recently produced a report, Faith as social capital: Connecting or dividing?, of which the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, spoke eloquently. It points to the capacity of communities of faith to build the very links, bridges and social capital which communities will require if they are to live in harmony. The same principle, that social capital arises at its best from the great world faith traditions, has been explored in the report of the Commission on Urban Life and Faith, soon to be published.
	In a world where global forces and foreign policy are often driven by the narrow values of profit, power and status, there is often little scope for consideration of the common good to which the world's faiths can so richly contribute. We need to find ways of renewing social organisation and justice in the face of fierce and destructive global dynamics. I am therefore hopeful that this debate will make a significant contribution to that enterprise.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for initiating it. As we hear about the work that is already being done, I am sure that we would like to express our appreciation to everybody, be it in a religious or secular capacity, who is trying to bring together people of different backgrounds, religions, faiths and cultures. They are doing a tremendous job, often in very difficult circumstances. I am sure that we wish them well.
	I am an emotional Welshman—I am not the only one to speak in this debate. I was standing outside the United Nations building in New York and looking at the flags. There was a flag for every nation—I think there were 192 in all—starting with Afghanistan and ending with Zimbabwe. Those two countries—the A and the Z—have had great problems, but many other countries in between have had serious political problems in the past. The UN, despite all its failings and its need for modernisation, has at least provided a forum for discussion. It has tried to overcome disputes before they become disasters. I am not sure that the world would have survived to see this 21st century without the United Nations' existence at the political level. Winston Churchill said that "Jaw jaw is better than war war", whereby you can get people to talk together and ease—and sometimes succeed in resolving—their problems.
	Sometimes I dream. We all dream dreams. Would it not be possible for the world's faiths also to join together in some permanent organisations where they could discuss their problems and difficulties? Should we not work towards that? If you work and talk together you learn to understand, respect and tolerate each other. It is dialogue on a global scale. We also have many United Nations conventions. Is it not time for us to consider a UN convention on religious responsibilities and religious rights, so that people feel that whatever their faith, that faith is respected and upheld?
	When we choose people for various international interfaith groups, or even a massive global forum, how do we get people who really represent their societies and communities to take part? We know that the Muslim community in the United Kingdom has various organisations and that the Christian community has a massive breadth of organisations. How do we choose people who can speak with authority and have the confidence of the people who are part of their communities?
	We have made great advances in the Christian Church. There were the divisions of yesteryear—I am a Welshman. Would the Calvinistic Methodists share a platform with the Wesleyan Methodists? That is not a problem any longer. People of various strands of a faith come together. In Churches Together in England (CTE), the Evangelical Alliance and in other inter-Church organisations we come together and overcome many problems that existed years ago. If we are discussing this at a national or an international level, the faiths themselves—the Churches and the faith organisations—should choose their representatives. It should not be imposed by any government, because politicians can often use religion for their own ends.
	I was reminded of that today. In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon wrote that all religions were to the believer equally true, to the philosopher equally false, and to the politician equally useful. We may have found in people such as President Bush that readiness to use a Christian agenda for their own ends. So people from the religious communities themselves must choose those who lead them, and the door should always be open at every level to welcome new people who should feel that there is a growing respect and understanding.
	I have spoken of Christianity, but we can speak of Islam in which there are many different strands. One of the problems is that there are so many different strands that they are warring against each other—you cannot obtain cohesion. The moderate voices in those strands are drowned by the loud and fierce minorities. We must work together and the dialogue must continue. It starts at our own feet at local level, which has been mentioned more than once. When that happens, we of different faiths can begin to show our respect and tolerance and get the confidence of those who do not believe as we believe, but are ready to talk together and be at peace together. Then, understanding can be very close. Within the body of our law, which is the final and only framework, there is a law of Parliament within which every faith group must act. Once we begin to be diverted from that we will be in the middle of anarchy.
	So at many levels—in local communities and at national level—I can still dream of my global forum of faiths. We can work together and in the end we will overcome many of the problems that cause us such great difficulty at the present time.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to join in the thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for this timely debate. I hope to give a few practical examples of how Christian and Islamic co-operation can work in a variety of situations. In this country, the Care NOT Killing Alliance has brought together leaders of the major faiths in pointing out better ways of helping people to die than by medically-assisted suicide. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff and the late Dr Zaki Badawi, of the Muslim College, London, were working together with others to produce moral and ethical guidelines. I hope that such interfaith collaboration will command wide respect even among agnostics and humanists.
	Overseas, Indonesia, as has been mentioned, is the country with the largest Muslim population. It experienced a breakdown of relations between Islamic and Christian communities which had co-existed until recent years; for example, in Sulawesi and other parts of the Spice Islands. Militants, however, caused severe loss of life and destruction of homes. Violence came to an end with the Maluku agreements. At that time, my noble friend Lady Cox, who regrets not being able to be here today, took a prominent part in establishing the International Islamic-Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction. It has three worldwide boards and aims to work with all relevant bodies on the religious, political and social issues affecting the relations between Islam and Christianity.
	The first task was in Indonesia, where 14 local leaders formed an interfaith council to implement an action plan for reconciliation with reconstruction and good government. The honourable presidency of the group was taken on by Mr Wahid, the previous head of state. Locally IICORR was, and still is, staffed by young people of both faiths. Its executive board hopes to be able to work using similar methods in northern Nigeria, which has also suffered major interfaith violence.
	To return to Britain, and in particular to Somerset, I would like to mention the Ammerdown centre near Bath. I declare an interest as a founder member and current trustee. This ecumenical Christian initiative always sought for unity of Christian thought and action but soon began—a number of years ago—to develop Christian-Jewish dialogue and mutual understanding. It now strives to work with all the major faiths and offers an annual Jewish-Christian-Muslim summer school, perhaps the only one of its kind in this country. Mutual respect between major religions is a fine principle. By itself, however, it will have a hard time withstanding the forces of ignorance, prejudice and downright ill-will unless there is dialogue at all levels. That is the way to help people to have some grasp of how others understand themselves in the light of their own faith and spirituality and thus proceed to guide their behaviour.
	I conclude by touching on a new British NGO called Forward Thinking. Here again I refer to my interest as a board member. That came into being as a Christian initiative in building bridges with the many different Muslim communities living in England. The organisation employs a small number of Muslims to help their co-religionists to avoid inward-looking isolation. It provides opportunities for Muslim groups to make contact with what one might call establishment institutions such as Parliament, NATO, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, and the Foreign Office. I am glad to say that we have had heartening co-operation from those major departments. Much more could and should be done in all those areas, but it is good that a bishop of the established Church should be pointing to the urgent need in today's world for better Christian/Islamic co-operation.
	That is so important not only here in Britain but throughout western Europe, extending to Bosnia and Kosovo and going as far as Indonesia and many parts of Africa. I am confident that the Churches here will respond; for example, by following the lead of Liverpool and Leicester in forming interfaith leadership groups or by promoting face-to-face visits and dialogue between the rank and file of the faithful. It would be good also to draw on the more secular expertise of the whole voluntary sector to meet the needs of the most excluded and disadvantaged people in all faith communities. What we should, and I trust will, do in Britain, especially as regards common citizenship, can have positive implications for the boundaries and overlaps of the great faiths throughout the world.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a helpful and constructive debate. We need to have more of them over the country. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on sparking off the debate. We have heard some useful contributions from almost all Benches. I was brought up in the Church of England and some of my non-conformist friends used to say of the Church of England that it was the Conservative Party at prayer. Well, the Conservative Party has not been praying today in this House. Perhaps it is praying at the altar of capitalism instead. That may be because it is absent from the cities. My experience during the past 20 years is that, having started my life as a Protestant deeply hesitant about the thought of going inside a Catholic church, I have found myself increasingly talking at Muslim assemblies to large groups of Muslims in Huddersfield, Bradford, Nelson, Manchester and elsewhere. This issue concerns us all in our local politics throughout all of Britain's cities.
	As the right reverend Prelate remarked, the question is whether we have better co-operation or worse conflict. After all, conflict consolidates communities. The creation of external threats is a way to make people feel that they have a stronger shared identity. External threats also consolidate regimes in power in the West, as well as in the Muslim world, and help to suppress dissent. That is the politics of fear against the liberal politics of hope. We see that within the Muslim world in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran; and we see it in the western world in the politics of the populist Right within Europe and, in recent years, within the Right-wing coalition in the United States.
	Directly relevant to the drift of British foreign policy is the fact that many of us are concerned about the drift of the debate in the United States. There is the constant search for an external enemy, whether it be China or Islam—it must be one or the other, but perhaps it is both. There are the references in the most recent quadrennial defence review to the idea of the long war, which is the clash of civilisations converted into military form: the idea that there is to be a war between the West and Islam. There is the influence of the fundamentalist Christian Right, with its apocalyptic vision of a world divided between good and evil, the saved and the damned—concepts that sometimes appear even on the lips of the president of the United States—and the easiness of the concept of a Judaeo-Christian world, which is posed as being against the Islamic world. I was at least taught as a boy about the three religions of the Book, which seems to be a much better way to talk about all this than to pose Islam as part of the barbarian world against our civilised world. There is a simplistic view of a monolithic Islam even among many who understand the subtleties of Mormons versus evangelical Christians versus Catholics and so on.
	In the United States, there has been a drift in recent years away from area studies in language and culture even in some of the best American universities, so I particularly welcomed the announcement last week of the establishment of new centres of inter-religious studies at Georgetown and at Harvard, sponsored by leading moderate Muslims in the Middle East. That is exactly the direction in which the United States should be going, and I trust that the arguments that those in the theological world are also having with their American counterparts also stress the greater need for interfaith dialogue.
	Western European interests are different; we are much closer to the Muslim world, but we are also much more painfully aware of our own intolerant past than the United States appears to be—I have in mind the vigour with which Catholics and Protestants killed each other in so many countries, and Christian persecution of our Jewish minorities over centuries. We are now talking about the pursuit of tolerance over fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that the anti-religious dimension of liberalism on the European continent was, as he well knows, a revolt against the authoritarianism of the Catholic Church. It was much easier for liberals in Britain to retain their religious identity because the Church of England was open to a range of different persuasions, and it was possible to be a non-conformist or a Catholic against the established Church. That is part of the glory of the whole Elizabethan settlement on which the Church of England is built.
	There needs to be a much greater understanding of diversity among Sunnis, Shias, Ahmediyyas and others, and among our Kurdish, Kashmiri, Somali and Hausa communities in our country and elsewhere. This week, I received two invitations to the Navarra's celebrations—a new year celebration which I think goes back to Zoroastrian tradition. The Turkish state regards it as being completely against the principles of the Turkish state, which is partly why the Kurds celebrate it so vigorously, but I had not understood until this week that the Kazakhs also regard it as a traditional religious ceremony.
	There are counter-trends in Islam. Happily, one can celebrate the extent to which, despite moves back towards traditional Islam, women are making immense advances in education and in the autonomy of their lives, even in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. There are sadder counter-trends in Christianity in which some of those who are displaced by rapid social change are clinging to fundamentalism, and that, of course, is part of our problem. When social change becomes too rapid, it leaves those who are lost looking for a simple answer. Just as many of our second and third-generation Muslim immigrants look back to some sort of radical and simple answer, so too do those who are confused by the very rapid transition from traditional society and traditional values to the urban uncertainties of modern life. One should at least also mention the extent to which the explosion of populations in the south has increased the tension between the different communities. We see in Nigeria, Indonesia and Sudan the extent to which religion is used as a weapon in the conflict between communities over shortage of land and resources. How do we promote better co-operation, dialogue and understanding?
	I agree very strongly with my noble friend Lady Williams that education at all levels is extremely important. Recently, we were debating the history curriculum and national identity. Our history curriculum is a disgrace. It is part of what needs to be addressed with regard to how people are taught about identity, history and culture in British schools. Our universities are doing rather better. We now have centres for Islamic studies. We are beginning to think about how we train priests, ministers, rabbis and imams so that they understand and respect each other's traditions. After all, we should be promoting that.
	There are shared concerns, which we can stress, among our different religious traditions. For example, humane values, the stewardship of the Earth—which my noble friend Lady Williams also underlined—the emptiness of capitalist society and the limits to consumerism will all strike an echo in our broader community and in the different communities. In this country we need to be inclusive. We should certainly talk about the faiths of Britain, as Prince Charles to his credit, and often to the ridicule of the Right-wing press, does. We must offer respect to each other's religions and expect respect in return. We need to carry that message to the hardliners in other countries within the United States, within some parts of the Roman Catholic Church, within Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, and even within Israel.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the House is most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for initiating this debate. It has been challenging, with thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, as we would expect from the great quality in your Lordships' House. I declare an interest as chairman of council of King's College, London. I mention that, too, as important work is being undertaken by our new Centre for Faith and Public Policy, under the inspired guidance of Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman. This centre is dedicated to addressing the problem of how those of Christian and Islamic faiths can improve relations between them.
	It is a vital matter, not just for international security, to reduce the danger of the so-called "clash of civilizations", but also for better community relations at home. "Respect" is a word that has cropped up in many of your Lordships' speeches and is a thread through mine. We all have a responsibility to respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, stressed, the rights, religions and views of others, particularly when whole communities have been demonised by the actions of the zealous few. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, ably argued the importance of dialogue and diplomacy combined with the mutual respect developed in foreign policy.
	While the title of the debate is topical in today's climate, it would have sat just as well in the Persian era, long before the Crusades. It is only by understanding the past that we can fully inform the dialogue of today and build a basis for better discourse. My right honourable friend Michael Ancram once said:
	"Knowing how and why the knots of hatred and mistrust came to be tied is the only route to loosen, to unravel, and eventually to undo them".
	Many noble Lords may have seen the comments made by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales this week. I fully agree with the message that he puts forward and his calls for greater understanding between the three great Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, as mentioned too by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, in his fascinating speech. A dialogue—a rational activity, as he said—between these faiths, and indeed all beliefs, needs to be conducted and sustained at every possible level in life. The address of His Royal Highness has been reported worldwide. It is just as vital to have this discussion in the corner shop, as in this House today. After all, it has ramifications locally, nationally and internationally. It is as important that representatives of all faiths concerned can have access to the policymakers. We on these Benches have continually highlighted the importance of promoting possible relations between religious groups, both in the UK and around the world. I very much hope that the Minister can update us on links and avenues the Government have forged on this front.
	Following the recent cartoons controversy, mentioned by many noble Lords today, there is renewed talk about the need to reach out to the Muslim community. It is vital that this reflects neither our worst fears nor our best hopes but a real understanding, based on genuine discussion. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the issue here was a lack of respect. Not only we as politicians, but the media, should take care when making claims about the real message of another's religion. We should all take care to respect the social traditions of whichever country we are in.
	Indeed, as your Lordships are aware, it is natural to assume that the sources of religious and political difference must be the main topic for a dialogue, but the common ground may be better found in discussions about the foundations of faith. It is always easy to find issues that divide us, but we all share one world. All three Abrahamic religions have a common root, but, as His Royal Highness stated, all our beliefs call out for peace, not conflict and we need to
	"foster, encourage and act upon that which embodies the divine attributes of mercy and compassion".
	HRH the Prince of Wales deserves much credit in the field we are discussing today. He has strived publicly since his first speech on Islam and the West in 1993 to raise awareness and help solve many of these problems. There is a shared starting point in respect for life and the environment, and in recognising the spiritual dimension of existence.
	When we talk about the need for impoverished countries to develop, what sort of development do we have in mind? Do we mean the same things when talking of human rights? Could discussions not be taken forward on basic topics of solidarity, hospitality and respect, especially when considering how we deal with the elderly and refugees? Few people disagree that establishing common ground on these matters will make it easier to address the more contentious issues of competing demands of free speech and the tolerance of diversity. I recognise that, on an international level, dialogue becomes more difficult because of the intensity of the conflicts and the accompanying sense of grievance. The horrific incidents in Sudan, Nigeria and Pakistan are just a few that spring to mind. I noted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester drew our attention to Pakistan Day—for which I thank him—and commended President Musharraf's support for inter-faith projects. Those in positions of authority need to exercise restraint and calmness and to make sure that their communities are well informed. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us of Britain and other NATO countries' involvement in supporting the Muslim communities in the former Yugoslavia. So sensitive are these issues of faith in international politics that it is vital that any dialogue is organised in a sensible way. It is always possible to argue for improved dialogue without truly thinking about who is talking to whom about what, and without emphasising the imperative that all those involved need to be prepared to listen. Our diversity and differences should be a great source of pride; indeed, they should make us stronger.
	I end with a short quotation from the speech made on 21 March by HRH the Prince of Wales in Cairo. His expression is a clarion call to all:
	"The roots of the faith that we share in the one God, the God of Abraham, gives us enduring values. We need to have the courage to speak of them and affirm them again and again to a world troubled by change and dissention".

Lord Triesman: My Lords, like all noble Lords I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the case for better co-operation between Christianity and Islam in international affairs. He quite rightly said that we need as a Government to draw on the knowledge and expertise available. Much of that knowledge and expertise has been very clear in your Lordships' House today and I am sure that noble Lords will not mind if I say that that knowledge and expertise also flows from co-operation and attention to the wisdom that comes from Judaism, Hinduism and, indeed, from Humanists and others.
	The right reverend Prelate started with demographic changes and the clear risk of an entrenchment of cantonisation on religious grounds. I was taken by the helpful comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester when he drew that argument back to the midst of our own communities where it is also possible that social division and cantonisation can take place, whether we would wish for it or not—and we do not. Global-to-local resonance is something we need to understand very much better. So these are important issues and this is a timely opportunity to set out what I believe are the core values which underpin the United Kingdom's work in these areas.
	My noble friend Lord Parekh made a full and careful analysis of the historical relationship between the religions that helped to start this process. Like my noble friend I am neither a Christian nor a Muslim, but I am also working to understand the set of dynamics between those religions. I shall not follow him into the dialogue between the theologians because I can say with confidence that Her Majesty's Government have no position to convey to the House on that.
	I start by reminding the House of the basic values which have laid the foundations of our international system. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, started by referring to the United Nations, and so shall I, having just been there. At the end of the Second World War the nations of the world came together to form the United Nations to work to co-operate between faiths, across religions, across peoples and across states to save succeeding generations from the scourges of war that had been so tragically experienced just before its foundation. My noble friend Lord Griffiths called for nations themselves to take responsibility at times of crisis, and that is quite right. The United Nations, through its charter, is an expression of nations coming together to co-operate in these vital areas. Indeed, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will find in the charter some of the things he is looking for in new organisations. Some of those are written down, but unfortunately not always observed.
	The United Nations has not always succeeded, but that is not something that should allow us to undermine or diminish the tenets on which the obligations of the United Nations were made: to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of human persons, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small; to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained; and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
	In order to achieve those ends, the countries of the United Nations undertook to practise tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours. These tenets can be applied to the practice of international relations, but they can also be used by us all to define our outlook on life, to reaffirm the dignity and worth of the human person and to enable us to practise tolerance and to live together as good neighbours just among ourselves.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, emphasised "tolerance" as a key word—perhaps the keystone—of much of what we want to do. I share that view with him, as I share the view of my noble friend Lord Griffiths that "tolerance" must not become a weasel word—sometimes I think that weasels get an unduly bad press, but I know exactly what he meant.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, counterposed tolerance and fundamentalism and cautioned us about the intrusion of intolerance into international politics. I share that anxiety. Intolerance becomes an easy, perhaps a lazy, metaphor, in relation to others with whom we do not want to agree. That has to be something that we try to contest.
	The UN charter gives us a basis on which to conduct our international relations. The charter and subsequent treaties, including the various international and regional human rights conventions, give us guidance on how to act with others. That is not always comfortable. It means subjecting ourselves to scrutiny and criticising our friends when necessary. It gives us a basis on which to argue for, for example, the elimination of the death penalty or cruel punishment wherever they are applied. It gives us a basis for an opposition to the death penalty that is universal and not discriminatory between countries—we oppose the use of the death penalty in the United States as much as we do in the developing or Islamic countries. It also means that we condemn instances in which individuals are persecuted. That covers condemnation of all cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments, including some that are imposed under Sharia law. Punishments such as stoning and amputations are wholly inconsistent with international human rights standards, and I do not think that it is wrong of us, as a country with our values, to say so. The United Kingdom condemns all instances of individuals being persecuted because of their faith, wherever it happens and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly described our approach as being based on secularism, as is true for many countries. It sustains our reach-out with parity of esteem for all faiths, because we do not discriminate between them in the way in which we assert those values. I think that that was one of the central points of the noble Baroness's comments.
	The Prince of Wales said in al-Azhar in Cairo on Tuesday:
	"I think of the experience of Muslims living in Europe who are subject to varied and continuous expressions of Islamophobia by fellow-Europeans. I think of Christians living within some Muslim nations, who find themselves fettered by harsh and degrading restrictions, or subject to abuse by some of their fellow citizens. And I think of dreadful acts of terrorism and violence across the world, carried out in the distorted name of faith".
	We regularly urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. I echo the Prince's call that we must,
	"restore mutual respect between faiths, and that we should do all we can to overcome the distrust that poisons so many . . . lives".
	I join the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in congratulating the Prince of Wales on the humanity and clarity with which he spoke.
	The United Kingdom is well placed to defend these international values, because we are a multi-faith society. The United Kingdom's record on multi-culturalism and religious freedom is second to none. We aim to ensure that members of all faiths and no faith are treated with the same respect, dignity and tolerance in the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that everyone can enjoy the same opportunities and benefits, such as the freedom to worship, freedoms of expression, and access to education and healthcare. We recognise that faith communities contribute to social and community cohesion through the values and activities that underpin good citizenship, such as altruism, respect for others, ethical behaviour and community solidarity.
	I have no illusions that we have an urgent need for more co-operation and more understanding between faiths. Almost everybody who has spoken in this debate has called for that. This was most recently highlighted—I agree with a number of noble Lords who mentioned it—by the publication of the cartoons demonising the Prophet Mohammad across Europe. The violent reactions that were provoked among Muslims worldwide have thrown into sharp relief the issues surrounding tolerance and understanding between faiths and cultures. All of us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, have to balance respect and to make good judgment, which is proper in intelligent humans, about the relationships and balances between secular rights and faith sensibilities. I strongly agree with that. Self-control and a modicum of restraint are never things that would fatally undermine freedom of expression. Equally, a proportionate and peaceful response would never be fatal to achieving understanding of faith sensibilities. Self-control is what is needed on both sides.
	We can understand these complex issues and effectively address only them if we work in partnership not just with other governments and international institutions, but with all communities, at home and abroad. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said, we need to understand the core personal identity of people from different faiths. We must stress openness, transparency and respect for the views and beliefs of others. We need to emphasise that the great faiths have nothing to fear from tolerance and intellectual debate. Indeed, the core values of the great faiths demonstrate a common moral compass—as does humanism as a tradition, which is also worth emphasising. The sharing of values is a good basis for dealing with the challenges that we face.
	I was very taken with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, because he was a powerful advocate of these basic values without coming to their appeal from religion at all. That did not diminish the power of what he argued, nor his appeal for rationality in how we conduct the discussion. We need to come together across cultures and religions to form coalitions, which will give a clear statement of solidarity in combating extremism, so that individuals and communities can live in peace. Our strong basic values, which are informed by the best traditions of religions and of humanism, provide us with the basis to contribute to the enhancement we need in co-operation in international affairs.
	I turn to some questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the initiatives that the Government are taking. The United Kingdom Government have been active in numerous local, national and international arenas promoting inter-religious harmony and engagement. Based on the concept of good, strong dialogue and cohesion, we support organisations and forums that are engaged in breaking down barriers and in promoting understanding. There are now 185 multi-faith and inter-faith bodies in the United Kingdom, active in bringing people of different faiths together to increase trust, to diffuse inter-community tensions, to build community cohesion and to foster co-operation on local issues and projects.
	I too pay tribute to one of the initiatives that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned. In King's College, London, there has been, without question, a great tradition over a great many years of serious study in theology, security and peace-keeping, and of bringing all of those together.
	In formulating the FCO's strategy and priorities, we discuss with faith-based organisations what we should do and we listen to their wishes and concerns. This morning the FCO reconvened its advisory panel on religious freedom, an informal group of UK-based NGOs and representatives of faith groups concerned with religious freedoms worldwide—that is a coincidence with today's debate, but I mention that it has come together again. The aims of the panel are to exchange information, to discuss strategies and to help inform policy and to promote international religious freedom.
	In January, we saw the launch of the Christian Muslim Forum at Lambeth Palace aiming to create a more formal structure engaging in dialogue and promoting understanding between those two faiths. We look forward to seeing the fruit of that forum.
	The work of the Alexandria Process and the Alexandria Declaration initiated by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey has played a part in pulling together prominent members of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths to help secure a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
	Another tangible achievement has been the student exchange programme, funded by the FCO's Global Opportunities Fund, between the well renowned Muslim Institution in Cairo, al-Azhar, and the Church of England. I understand that one Anglican student has already left for Cairo and we await the arrival of two Muslim scholars to the United Kingdom later this year.
	On the international stage the UK has provided significant political and material support to the EU/ASEAN, ASEM (Asia Europe Meeting) Interfaith Dialogue co-hosted by the UK and Indonesia in Bali last year. My honourable friend Kim Howells from the other House attended the event. The Bali Declaration on Building Interfaith Harmony with the International Community highlighted that,
	"it is more important than ever for people of different religions and faiths to stand united".
	The theme for the second ASEM meeting taking place in Cyprus in July will be interfaith understanding and co-operation for a peaceful world. We hope that it will build on the success of last year's event but in particular take into account the latest developments in the field and consider the dialogues that have taken place and whether they can add value to interfaith relations within ASEM and in the wider world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the information on other organisations with which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, are involved. That was especially helpful as it drew other religions into the perspective as well.
	It is not just governments who have been encouraging co-operation across faiths; there are practical manifestations every day at a personal level as well as between non-governmental and civil society organisations. One of the most striking features of co-operation is the way in which people react to disasters. That is often a sharp test. We have seen that with the Pakistan earthquake where the United Kingdom played a great role financially and in other respects. We have seen that in Sudan where Christian and Muslim relief agencies are working side by side. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester gave us yet more evidence from his diocese.
	Christian and Muslim charities worked together with Buddhists, Hindus and others in an exemplary way in the aftermath of the tsunami. The United Kingdom Government made major donations in that regard. It is an example of people working together.
	I do not want to exaggerate the divisions in the world. Trade, diplomacy and information flows are the essence of international business in today's world and make no distinction based on faith. Indeed, the work that people do on terrorism makes no such distinction either. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, also made that point. Bombs placed on the London Underground do not divide their victims one religion from another as they dismember people. Individuals work on the basis of mutual respect and that is what is needed. Tolerance is vital in that and I think that has come through today's debate.
	As a small step to global understanding, the United Kingdom co-sponsored an EU resolution at the UN General Assembly in November 2005 to work towards the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.
	All that I have said should lead the House to understand that we strongly reject the thesis of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West, or the Christian West as it is sometimes described. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put that most elegantly, as ever. The treatment of groups in terms of stereotypes, as though they were simply homogeneous rather than richly faceted, is a hopeless way of trying to understand the world in any serious sense. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, also drew our attention to the very rich texture of the dialogue going on within Islam. There is a false dichotomy propagated by those who seek to promote division along the lines of religion in order to create disorder and chaos. Where we work together we can counter the voices of those extremists who seek to exploit differences. I echo the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester in making the point that in the EU work on the Balkans and on Turkey is a demonstration at the most practical, political level of a desire of people to come together and to live in a club that is multi-faith. That means that on occasion when we see things that are difficult we should be frank and acknowledge those as well.
	The United Kingdom Government are concerned about the plight of apostates throughout the world. We will continue to argue that it is not a legitimate way to pursue laws and practices when the results and consequences are so serious. Our embassy in Kabul is working with the EU to seek urgent clarification from the Afghan authorities about the case of Abdul Rahman. We will be kept informed of developments, and we will keep the House fully informed of those developments. The Austrian presidency of the EU has been very active on this as well, as it should be, and it is proposing an urgent demarche in Kabul at the highest possible level when we have received an up-to-date report on progress. The idea that someone might face execution because they have converted from one religion to another has no place in our world.
	I wholly understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on education. We are working on some Muslim heritage issues. In Manchester earlier this month, we saw the launch of the "1001 Inventions" exhibition of Muslim contributions to society. It is an educational exhibition of Muslim inventions by scholars in early centuries—the extent and variety of which is very impressive—in areas of science, technology, medicine and maths. A very large number of children are now visiting this exhibition and many of the things that they do in school are related to having seen the exhibition. The Foreign Office and the Home Office have been very pleased to support the initiative, and we need more like it.
	Those are the challenges that we meet today. If we keep working together, if we strive for common ground and if we crowd out those who seek to drive us apart we have some prospect of success. That must be what guides us. We must work together, work tolerantly and work with a degree of rationality. We must understand that it is all faiths, not just two faiths. We must understand that this project has enemies, and we must be alert to making sure that they do not get the upper hand.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to all those Members who have made a contribution this afternoon. I crave the indulgence of the House just to make one or two observations before I close, which are central to our debate this afternoon.
	The first has to do with contact. From the beginning, Muslims, Christians and Jews have been in contact with one another. That is also true of Christians, Hindus and Muslims. It was not just in the 19th century that Christians encountered Hindus; there is a 2,000 year history of that. I was trying to make the point that there is a considerable change in demography that puts this contact in a new light that we must take seriously. Secondly, I have been very grateful to hear the contributions made by your Lordships about the relationships between religion and the state. We all agreed that any contribution must be persuasive rather than coercive.
	Thirdly, there is the question of tolerance. I was glad to hear that word mentioned so often today. It must be engaged tolerance; it must even extend to hospitality. That word has been used. We must continue to ask where the wellsprings are from which these values come. They do not come from just anywhere. Fourthly, again and again the question was raised about the relationship between revelation—as in religious belief—and reason. As a Christian, I want to say and others will agree, that there is an intrinsic connection between religious belief and reason. Islam and Christianity, as they develop, need to examine their thought and their polity in that light; other faiths must do so as well. Certainly from the point of view of the Church of England, faith-based schools, which include people of many faiths in the case of Church of England schools, are committed to teaching pupils how to ask questions. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for pointing out the intimate relationship between the local and global. Of course, there are organisations in addition to the United Nations, such as the World Conference of Religions for Peace which do bring faiths together and we value what they do. Also, there is the possibility of interfaith collaboration on moral questions.
	I have two points in my mind with which I would like to leave your Lordships today. They both end this debate on rather a sad note. First, where are the Muslim Members of this House this afternoon? I am bound to ask that question because this has been rather a one-sided conversation. Secondly, I would not over-do, historically speaking, the tolerance of the Church of England. One has to be honest about that. I understand and admire the proliferation of study centres for faith and public policy, particularly Islamic centres, and study centres in so many universities, but we must work for academic independence. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EU Sugar Regime (EUC Report)

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, Too much or too little? Changes to the EU Sugar Regime (18th Report, HL Paper 80) in the context of the Doha development round of WTO negotiations.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move the Motion. I am very pleased that the powers that be have agreed to add the words,
	"in the context of the Doha development round of WTO negotiations".
	The WTO appeals tribunal decided in April last year, at the request of Brazil, Thailand and Australia, that the EU sugar regime broke WTO export rules. That decision led to the change in the EU sugar regime that we are talking about today. It would also be helpful if we looked a little further forward to what might happen next in the WTO Doha development round.
	I am grateful to the Clerk to our committee, Suzanne Todd, and Professor Sir John Marsh, our specialist adviser, who are largely responsible for the compactness and clarity that are the hallmark of the report. I thank all my colleagues who were involved in our Sub-Committee in this inquiry, and I have been particularly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to say how sorry he is that he is not here today. He spoke in the January debate about development aid, but he is on his way to the Ukraine to be one of the supervisors of the Ukraine elections on Sunday. This is doubtless an interesting time to be in the Ukraine.
	I think that noble Lords would agree that there is at least one unique feature to our report. In the very solemn context and appearance that House of Lords reports always have, we have a somewhat frivolous title. We ask a question:
	"Too much, or too little?"
	Three months have passed since we published the report and I still think that it is an appropriate question. Of course, we welcome the reform of the sugar regime. We very much agree with the remarks of the Government in June 2005 that the regime was,
	"anomalous and indefensible in its present form".
	During our inquiries, we were very pleased to talk to Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel at length in Brussels. She was obviously going out of her way to try to achieve a golden mean—a reform that would be quite substantial but which would, in a sense, be fair to all parties.
	It is too early to be certain whether she achieved that. Overall, the proposals that, as we all know, were subsequently modified from her first proposals, were all right for the European Union, but the position of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and India—about which I would like to talk in a few minutes—is more questionable. As most of your Lordships know, the price cut was originally to be 39 per cent. It was reduced to the still formidable figure of 36 per cent. The reductions were phased in slightly more gently than was suggested at the start; over four years, with the final cut in price in 2009-10.
	It is generally agreed that European Union producers receive a generous, ongoing compensation package of 64 per cent of the price cut for four years, with added diversification aid for those giving up more than 50 per cent of their quotas. I know that Commissioner Boel expects the EU of 25 countries to reduce production substantially over the whole period—once this is complete and in action—from about 19 million tonnes a year to 10 million or 11 million tonnes.
	I am delighted to note that my noble friend Lord Plumb is intending to speak. I expect that he will tell us something about the effect on British farmers. I might add that my noble friend Lord Jopling—who shares a room with me and whom I told we were having this debate—was somewhat doubtful, as a sugar-beet grower himself, whether he was really going to benefit. I assured him that my impression is that he, as a grower in the north of England, was not going to do too badly.
	I seek clarification on one point in our report, though I do not want to dwell on it too long as it is, in a sense, now a done deal. The EU Ministers agreed in February to this going ahead and the details are to be finally settled by July this year. Yet there is one point which I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify for us when he replies. That is on the question of job losses. In paragraph 44 of our report, we quote Commissioner Boel telling us that, on the basis of the proposals, there would be,
	"a loss of 54 factories, a reduction in agricultural jobs of about 6,500, industrial jobs of about 25,000, and indirect jobs 51,000".
	On a rough summing-up, that means about 80,000 jobs being lost overall in the EU. Then, in paragraph 46 on the same page the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as a relevant Minister, told us that,
	"failure to reform would mean twice as many jobs would be lost".
	Well, twice 80,000 would mean 160,000.
	Slightly to my surprise, therefore, when we received the Government's response to our report a few days ago, paragraph 125—on, I think, page 5—states that,
	"The Government agrees with the Committee's conclusions which reflect the findings in the European Commission's own analysis that, without reform around 15,000 jobs would be lost in the European sugar industry by 2012".
	It says 15,000, not 160,000; was a zero perhaps omitted when that paragraph went through the typographer's hands? If the Minister could correct that when he replies, then I thank him in advance for that. To sum up, it is generally expected that EU producers will receive about €7 billion over the years in compensation, to cushion the impact of the price falling by 36 per cent over that period.
	Then one comes to the more difficult part of the equation. What the ACP countries and India get as guaranteed export into the EU is spelt out in our report. Chapter 5 deals with the problems and pages 24 and 25 go into the detail. In essence, ACP countries and India have, since 1975, been guaranteed that the EU will purchase specific quantities of cane sugar at a guaranteed price. Therefore, as the EU farmers' price for sugar beet now falls, as I have described, the ACP countries and India will get reduced prices for their 1.3 million tonnes of quota exports to Europe.
	Understandably, this immediately led to cries of anguish and protest from speakers for the ACP countries. I have here a document produced by the general secretariat of the ACP, dated 15 December:
	"The ACP have justifiably argued that €500 million per year will be necessary to allow them to adapt and survive".
	This was at a time when all the EU had said was that it would be €40 million for the first year.
	"This view is shared by certain Member States, including the UK, where the House of Lords this week warned the amount of assistance, currently earmarked for the ACP is 'desperately inadequate'".
	I do not think that we ever used the word "desperately", but we said that it was, in our judgment, very inadequate. That statement was picked up by a further document from the general secretariat of the ACP a week later:
	"The current situation is gravely unjust. It is a complete contradiction of the EU's stated commitment to the developing world. The ACP are the collateral damage of this reform and nothing is being done to help us".
	This shows how difficult it is to do good in the world. In fact, Commissioner Fischer Boel had done what had, for many years, been asked for but had not happened: reform of the EU sugar regime. In the process of reforming, she had cut the price so that, instead of being three to four times the world price, it would now only be twice the world price.
	The fact of the matter is, however, that there will definitely be a loss of export earnings for some ACP countries—such as Fiji, Saint Kitts and Jamaica—which depend on their 150-160,000 tonnes of EU exports at a favourable price. They find this an important part of their export earnings, and have made a number of protests saying that they do not know what they are going to do instead.
	What is the Commission's position? It said originally that there would be €40 million for the first year, 2006. I understand that that has now changed to 2007, but that it is saying that it then hopes to make €190 million a year available for adjustment in the ACP countries—but, of course, the EU budget is not yet totally fixed for the next period. There will continue to be debate about this figure; that is obvious. At least it is a big step up from what was originally proposed.
	The question still arises, however, of how this aid is to be delivered. What are to be the mechanisms for delivery? The point has been made to me that it is important that it should not just go to the multinational companies, who are important in the world sugar industry, but that there should be specific aid for farmers and smallholders, and help in seeing how new industries—compatible with the climate, environment and workforce traditions—could be started in some of these countries. No one could pretend that this is going to be very easy. There is a new development and economic co-operation instrument in the Commission, which I think will be responsible for handling this money. It will have to learn about trade reform in the developing world. ACP countries will not necessarily want exactly the same as the LDCs. The comment has been made to me that the LDCs have been completely sidelined in the argument about the sugar regime. They do not have the same imperial link, or the same ability to make their views know as, for example, Mauritius.
	Therefore, this becomes a complicated trade development and we should ask what we can learn from it for aid for trade generally in Africa and other parts of the developing world. How can we make sure that when there is aid for trade it gets there, it goes to the right people and the right people are given better market access? These are all lessons to be learnt. That is the broader question of the WTO and the Doha development round.
	This morning, I learnt that Oxfam is about to publish a pamphlet about the Doha development round, of which the headline will be, "A recipe for disaster". The reason is that Oxfam thinks that when the least developed countries agreed to join the development round they were concerned with the agricultural pillar only and how export subsidies and support in the agricultural world could be removed. However, it is now becoming clear that changes in access for industrial subsidies and the services world are every bit as important to the EU and the USA as what happens in the agricultural world, perhaps more so. The EU wants access in the developing world for its transport, IT, telecoms and financial services. Similarly, the USA is considering the removal of subsidies or import tariffs of about €4 billion and is demanding reciprocal access for its established industries in the developing world.
	There is a real danger that this could be locking developing countries into low-value agricultural production while much of the new industrial production and access is taken over by the developed world, particularly the EU and the USA. In essence, that is the point that Oxfam wishes to make. It leads on to the thought that developing countries must be very careful about what they sign up to in any Doha development round because once a country has signed up to the WTO, it cannot unsign. It might be better to have further delay because no deal this year is better than a bad deal. Thus, the sugar regime has become a litmus test for Doha and for making reasonable deals that will help development and trade in the developing world. How can the EU and the USA help locally financed industry to grow in the developing world and then give tariff-free market access for those manufactured products to their domestic markets? If we are to succeed in this programme to help Africa, to cut its debt and improve standards of life in developing countries, those are the key questions that have to be answered. This is the most important element in fighting to reduce poverty in the developing world.
	I have no doubt that all of us will hope for success in this field. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us some of the Government's thoughts about where Doha and the WTO discussions go in this important year before the United States president's fast-track provision runs out early in 2007. All of us will hope for success, but I hope that the Minister may feel that he does not have to use the usual words, "the Government remain committed to a successful conclusion". It would be much better if he could substitute "the Government are determined to achieve a successful conclusion". I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee, Too much or too little? Changes to the EU Sugar Regime (18th Report, HL Paper 80) in the context of the Doha development round of WTO negotiations.—(Lord Renton of Mount Harry.)

Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's query. I congratulate him on having read our response so carefully. He was right: it was a printing error. It should have read "150,000" and not "15,000". I thank the noble Lord and apologise to him.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend on spotting that error, especially given that the report was published not so long ago, and on the masterly way in which he introduced this debate. I congratulate him also on his chairmanship of the Select Committee, which produced such an excellent report, and on his securing this debate so quickly after it came out. It gives us the opportunity to look ahead, which is what we must now do.
	I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Associated British Foods, which owns British Sugar. Inevitably, I shall have to say a great deal about the position of British Sugar. It is impossible to avoid doing so when one is talking about the sugar regime in terms of the UK. I live in Norfolk. I represented a constituency in Norfolk for 27 years, when I made extensive farming contacts. I hope that I still have farming friends in the community despite having once been Minister of Agriculture.
	I mention Norfolk because many of my friends there are sugar beet growers. I think that roughly one-third of the sugar beet that is grown in this country comes from Norfolk. Therefore, I have a dual interest in this debate.
	Sugar beet has been a staple crop in these pressing times, which—I cannot resist saying it to the Minister—have been accentuated by the Government's failure to reach their target for paying a single farm payment. That is a source not only of great anger but great distress to many farmers. Sugar beet is one of the few crops which have produced good returns in these pressing times. There has understandably been much concern and uncertainty during the past few months while the regime has been negotiated and farmers have evaluated the outcome.
	These reforms are radical. British Sugar broadly supports them and has done so throughout. Recognising that they were imminent and knowing that they would have a considerable impact on its profits, British Sugar has been pursuing a strategy of diversification and restructuring, as farmers also have had to do.
	Some five to six years ago, about 50 per cent of ABF's profits came from British Sugar. Today, because of the diversification, that proportion is 25 per cent. It is interesting that the impact of the reduction in profits from British Sugar in this coming year is likely to be at the same level as the impact of the much higher energy costs that we are facing.
	British Sugar supports the objective of achieving a more competitive, efficient and sustainable sugar industry in Europe which provides benefit to customers. I entirely agree with the Select Committee that to have left the regime unchanged would have signalled a distorted and wasteful use of resource in European agriculture. However, to make sure that the reform works effectively, the Commission and member states' governments must ensure that their policies support the reforms and the agreed decisions, and that some member states do not try to block some of them. I look to the UK Government to keep up the pressure on that.
	We must, however, recognise how extremely challenging the new regime will be to both processors and growers. It will change fundamentally the shape of the industry in the European Union. My noble friend said that the Commissioner's original proposals were weakened in the negotiations, but I know from my many years' experience of negotiating on agriculture in the EU that that is a normal process. Every Commissioner expects some weakening as negotiators try to argue their own corner. It will be a challenging outcome for farmers and growers.
	If the regime becomes more efficient and sustainable, some countries will exit from beet—I believe that one country has already done so—and high-cost and less efficient processors and growers will disappear. We will have a new EU market that is smaller and has fewer large and efficient players.
	I wish briefly to refer to three issues, beginning with the position in the UK. British Sugar is committed to being a surviving industry and to continuing its strong record of efficiency and improvements to do that. For the avoidance of doubt—and over the past weeks and months I have had to reassure a number of Norfolk farmers about their doubts—I emphasise that British Sugar intends to continue production of its current quota for sale into the domestic market. Provided that we are able to secure adequate raw materials, we have no intention to renounce quota. In emphasising that proviso, the raw materials must come from UK beet growers so that there is a real incentive to work together.
	I am pleased to say that British Sugar is now the most efficient European sugar processor. It will have to continue the process of becoming more efficient through productivity improvements, technical innovation and investment. Likewise, the grower will have to improve productivity if we are to succeed in the new regime and continue to have a profitable crop. That is why British Sugar is setting growers a challenging target in the next three years or so and working with them to achieve an average of 70 tonnes per hectare across the industry, compared with 60 tonnes today, which itself is a huge improvement on earlier years. That is a challenging but achievable target, in line with the objective of the reform which is to drive the efficiency of the remaining European industry and to make it more sustainable.
	Regarding grower compensation in the UK, I support decoupling and agree with the NFU that beet growers should get the majority of the compensation until it is eventually absorbed into the single farm payment. I look to the Government to achieve that.
	Secondly, I have spoken more than once in this House about bioethanol, and I helped to secure an amendment that enabled the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation to come about. That is relevant because, apart from the important objective of reducing the contribution of transport to global warming, it offers farmers another source of diversification. Unfortunately, we in this country started very late compared with many others in the development of bioethanol. The 2006 Budget report—not all of which I have read, but I did get to page 165—states that the biofuels market share has increased sixfold since 2003. That sounds tremendous, until we learn that it still accounts for only 0.25 per cent of road fuels. So there is a big challenge there.
	I was pleased to see in yesterday's Budget, first, the announcement that the 20p per litre incentive for bioethanol is to be continued into 2007–08; and, secondly, that the target has been set for the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. It will be introduced in 2008-09, starting at a low level but, I hope, working up to 5 per cent by 2010-11. We started late, so we have a long way to go. However, because the Government made that commitment, British Sugar has now invested £20 million in the plant at Wissington, the first bioethanol plant in the UK, which will come on stream in 2007. I hope that the Government will continue to monitor whether they are achieving their targets on biofuels and will not go below the targets set in the Budget yesterday, and that they take further measures if they fail to reach the targets.
	Thirdly, I wish to refer to the international scene. My noble friend Lord Renton concentrated mainly on that and I do not wish to cover the same ground. The Select Committee report, too, put much emphasis on the ACP and developing countries. I have one point on the international context. The industry will be planning on the basis that the EU retains its export potential under its agreed WTO limits. I ask the Minister to comment on that.
	I want to turn to Africa. British Sugar recently announced that it is negotiating to acquire a 51 per cent stake in Ilovo Sugar—Africa's largest sugar producer, in, I think, about seven countries. It is still early days in the negotiations and the outcome is unknown. There will be big opportunities for LDC countries in the EU markets from 2008-09 onwards. British Sugar expertise in improved technology and efficiency has already been well applied for some years in China, a sugarcane producer, where we place strong emphasis on corporate social responsibility. If successful in the bid, British Sugar would be supportive of Illova's expansion plans domestically in Africa as a whole and believes that its experience in production and its knowledge of European markets would help it to optimise the opportunities both in Africa and especially in the EU from 2009 on. It is intended to be a long-term investment with high awareness of and support for the company's social responsibilities in Africa.
	That is just one example of how there will be big changes not only in the EU but in the world scene. The reforms are tough and EU and world markets are going to change substantially. The challenge is considerable, but it was high time the regime was changed, and the reforms are broadly right.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I very much welcome the report, which I found fascinating reading. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry suggested that it might be a way of looking at other agricultural products in the developing world as in competition with the developed world. I am not certain about that. As far as I know, sugar is the only example of a completely undifferentiated consumer product—when the housewife buys a bag of sugar, it says on the label whether it is cane or beet sugar, but if it did not she would not know. They are two completely different plant species of different origins. One works extremely well in certain tropical and semi-tropical conditions and the other works in temperate conditions.
	I do not believe that there is another example. If we take vegetable oils, of which many are available across the world, nevertheless each remains pretty distinct. Olive oil is not like palm oil and rapeseed oil is not like soybean oil. They have distinct characteristics which are retained, although they too can be used for biofuels. Indeed, it is that aspect of the sugar market and sugar production on which I want to concentrate; particularly the ACP part. Six of the countries in the list are Commonwealth countries which have populations of between 1 million—Guyana has under 1 million—and 3 million and per capita incomes of between $1,000 and $4,000 against our $25,000. They produce about 1 million tonnes out of the 1.3 million tonnes included in the report. Because of my Commonwealth Development Corporation background I am familiar with five of the six countries. I have never been to Guyana but I feel I know it because the Guyanese used to come regularly to explain to us. I see that the committee took evidence from Mr Barry Newton, who was an excellent colleague of ours in CDC. We had many joint endeavours with Booker Tate and he knows Guyana like the back of his hand.
	The sugar protocol goes back a long way: it has its roots in imperial preference. Those of us of a certain age remember that there was not any sugar in the war, or very little—and there was not a lot of beet or beet sugar. It is a post-Second World War industry to a great extent. There was some but not much. It has needed reform for a long time. The point I wanted to make was that, if I remember rightly, it was the European farmers who originally jumped in on the back of the imperial preference protocols and the price became equal—my noble friend Lord Plumb will know the history much better than I—because the European industry saw an opportunity to say, "We deserve equality with the price being given to the cane sugar producers coming under imperial preference, or Lomé, or subsequently Cotonou". We should remember that. We should also remember that this is primarily a UK issue. If we read the list of ACP countries, the 1.3 million tonnes come largely from Commonwealth members and countries with strong connections with this country to whom, at one or another time, we have been very grateful.
	We must add in the fact that the population of Mauritius is very largely ethnically Indian, because of sugar; the population of Fiji is very largely ethnically Indian, because of sugar; and the population of Natal is very largely Indian, because of sugar. There is a tremendous history. I do not want to go back to the 17th century barons in the Caribbean, but there is a tremendous history here. The UK is more bound up with that history than many of the other countries in Europe. In fact, that history is not really of tremendous interest to, for example, either Germany or Poland, which are big producers of beet sugar. The French are the largest producers and, again, their interests are historically somewhat different from ours.
	What is the size of the problem? My noble friend Lord Renton said that it was 19 million tonnes, rather than 18 million tonnes, so I shall say the same. It will reduce to 10 or 11 million tonnes. That is what the commissioner promised in evidence. That must be compared with 1.3 million tonnes coming from the ACP countries. Even if European production reduces as far as it is hoped, the issue of the 1.3 million tonnes does not seem all that difficult to solve in principle. I shall come back to that.
	As for European production, 6 million tonnes of exports will cease—or is it 5 million tonnes? I think that there was a hint that there would still be 1 million tonnes of export. Presumably, 2 million tonnes will be brought in, because we shall have a sugar deficit instead of a surplus. Then, the question becomes: what will happen to the world price? I remember well when it was six cents a pound—when we worked in pounds and US cents. The ACP price was 26 cents. Such disparities have gone on for a long time. It is a matter of great regret that that nettle was not grasped a long time ago. I remember making representations to what was then the ODA from CDC asking whether it was not time that someone did something about that, because all sorts of distortions were being built in that would be very expensive to sort out.
	My point is: do we know what is going to happen to the world price? No, we have no idea. There is the looming ghost of Brazil, which may do something dreadful, perhaps, but various assurances have been made to the committee that that will not be allowed to happen. The Brazilians have been cross-subsidising their sugar production with ethanol. To my knowledge, they have been making ethanol for their motor cars for more than 20 years, and very funny noises those cars make when they go up their steep hills.
	In evidence, the Commissioner said that 8 million tonnes is definitely coming off and that it was not an option to do nothing. There was a sort of sideways suggestion that tourism might be some sort of solution for some of the members of the ACP. Historically, when we considered the sugar market years ago, we were more worried about Cuba than Brazil. At the time, Cuba was exporting between 8 million and 9 million tonnes of sugar a year; it is now down to 4 million. So these things do change. In many ways, the most telling comment of the evidence-taking session came from Mr Lars Hoelgaard, who said,
	"we do not have a perfect allocation of resources . . . in practice you will always have distortions".
	I suppose that that is just a description of agriculture, is it not? That is one of the reasons why pure market forces do not quite do when it comes to agricultural production and trade.
	The evidence given by DfID was a very straight bat, but I got the impression that it was not really DfID's problem; it was something to do with Brussels and the Commission, and someone else was going to sort it out. Anyway, as Lady Kinnock told us, no one has any money in their budget at the moment for the ACP countries. I therefore came to the conclusion that the regime was ready to do whatever it felt it had to do to European farmers and European processors, but it was not ready to do whatever it was going to do about the ACP countries. I hope that it will not simply be left to Brussels. It is a bit unkind to be asking the Minister to take this on because, after all, I would have thought that his colleague in DfID would have the most knowledge of what is going on in these small ACP countries and what could easily be done about it. It is not easy for them to find alternatives. None of them is likely to become a Switzerland or a Singapore.
	However, there is a disparity and there are differences, which the report points out. I hope that Her Majesty's Government make a real effort to work out, protocol country by protocol country, what the issues are, what can be done, and how the transition to this long-overdue reformed market can be best handled to the maximum advantage of countries such as Swaziland, Fiji, Guyana, Jamaica and the others in the list.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be part of what I believe to be a very cohesive team in Sub-Committee D under the very able chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. We were well served, as he said in his opening remarks, by our Clerk, a secretary and our specialist adviser to the inquiry on the sugar regime, Professor Sir John Marsh, who is regarded as one of the most experienced policy advisers in the United Kingdom on agricultural business—hence the excellent report that was produced.
	Naming our report on changes to the sugar regime Too Much or Too Little? may sound a little frivolous, as my noble friend said, but I believe it sums up admirably the worldwide views of all who gave evidence from Brazil, Australia, South Africa and some of the larger producers who unfortunately have been linked into the ACP group. As has already been said quite clearly, this matter, so far as the ACP countries are concerned, must be dealt with very positively country by country because of the differences and the difficulties so many of those countries have. If you compare the spread of large producing countries that are still intent on increasing their production with countries such as Malawi and some of the other very poor regions, you can see that very different treatment is needed in all those cases.
	The economies of many of those smaller countries are mainly, if not solely, dependent on sugar production. I often think of the similar situation with bananas—many people felt that the central American banana would put many of them out of business. I remember people trying to tell dear old Mrs Charles in Strasbourg that we could get much cheaper bananas from central America. A big brown fist came down on the table and she said, "If you want my bananas, you have my bananas. You don't have my bananas, you have cannabis". We should stop and think about that for a moment. If we are not careful, we could drive some of these countries completely out of business, and what will we get in exchange? It does not bear thinking about.
	I declare an interest as an ex-grower of sugar beet. I stopped growing it many years ago because, as a Warwickshire farmer, I could not compete with Norfolk farmers. I also declare an interest as a farm leader. When my noble friend Lord Eccles was speaking, my mind went back to those days when many of the negotiations were going on about the part that UK growers could play against the world leaders of growing cane sugar.
	Your Lordships would not expect me to say that the report, or the decisions taken by Ministers since the report was produced, is wholly satisfactory for the producers of sugar beet. It may not be fully appreciated, and it may surprise many people to know, that while sugar beet is seen as a very important breakcrop in arable areas, particularly East Anglia, it is also important to the livestock industry in the United Kingdom.
	It may be surprising when you read the 260-odd pages of the report, with the evidence given from so many, that a body such as the sheep association felt that it had a responsibility to make a point. It said that within the arable rotations where sugar beet is a suitable breakcrop, it is environmentally beneficial and provides immensely valuable after-crop forage for grazing sheep and beef cattle in the form of sugar beet tops. I refer to the golden hoof of the sheep, therefore, which is promoted as a feature of good husbandry. It also reduces the cost of land production to the benefit of the industry and exports. Sugar beet pulp, another by-product, is a vital ingredient to many livestock rations. All that must fit into the whole pattern. It is a breakcrop, but it is also a crop which fits into the pattern of the balance of farming.
	I have spoken with a lot of individual sugar beet growers recently. With cuts now agreed on the longer term by Ministers, the price could drop as low as £17 a tonne, against a cost of production of between £16 and £19 per tonne. As sugar beet growers prepare to plant this year's spring crop, they say that that would make it unprofitable. I am sure that the Minister will say, "Yes, but there is appropriate and generous compensation, which will be paid to the farmers". As one farmer said to me recently, "It sounds reasonable and generous to pay up to 64 per cent compensation against a cut of 36 per cent. But if that is paid through the single farm payment to all employed in agriculture, beet growers will quickly say that that is not so good". As they see it, it has been announced that in the rest of Europe their competitors' compensation may stay directly with the individual.
	We are aware of the substantial surplus of sugar in Europe, particularly in France. When we were taking evidence, I think that it was quoted that the surplus in France is almost equivalent to the total consumption of sugar that we consumed last year. So that has to be dealt with. When national quotas are reduced, I hope that Ministers therefore will agree that those countries with the largest surplus should take their share of the reduction over time.
	I accept that the national quota will have a value and that the reduction will affect processes as well as growers. But if a farmer decides to give up beet growing through economic reasons, or British Sugar decides to close its factories by moving quota elsewhere, compensation will be crucial in allowing restructuring of its businesses. It is already planned to convert part of the Whittington factory, which has already been referred to and is in a very large beet growing area, and to take surplus C beet and convert it into bioethanol. This will give growers something in the region of £10 to £15 per tonne, depending on world ethanol prices and future demand. Farmers are beginning to wonder if they will be turning their fields into oilfields for the future. It is a very small part of the overall mix and the overall scene at the moment. Let us hope that the future will take away some of the problem as far as sugar is concerned.
	This may provide some ray of hope. British Sugar is to be congratulated on the initiative it is taking. It will be essential for growers and processors to work in harmony in order to stay in business. As ever with European Union reforms, we end up with compromise. I believe there is a lot to be done to ensure improvement and get a better start than seemed likely when the decision on price levels was first taken. The efficiency of the scheme in removing production in order to reduce surpluses is central to its success; therefore I support it. It provides a voluntary means of reducing surpluses, instead of applying an across-the-board quota cut.
	The United Kingdom has, as we know, an efficient beet growing industry yield. That yield has doubled since my beet growing days; it has probably trebled. To reduce production, the issue is one of market balance, while encouraging inefficient industries to exit under a reasonable strategy. If the policy is to last for nine years and three months, until September 2015 from 1 July this year, it at least offers a period of stability and, I hope, visibility for the sugar sector. If the price cuts span four years, they allow for adjustment. Growers will hope that if payments are made and managed by the RPAs, the present confusion will then be history. Let the appalling mistakes of last year be a lesson for the future.
	Looking ahead to 2014, we should ask: will the reform work? Does it—or will it—comply with WTO rules? Will all countries that are party to the WTO honour those rules? At the end of the day, will it be worth it? Our inquiry covers the world sugar market and emphasises the difficulty one has, because the situation must be looked at globally. Evidence from many of the ACP countries, who rely on cane sugar production and export for their economy, claims that the impact of change is potentially large and serious. This is at a time when the G8 emphasises the importance of free trade and fair trade for ACP countries. If they lose market share and compensation is insufficient there will be problems.
	The case for aiding underdeveloped countries carries a heavy political weight. Is causing economic damage to the European sugar industries the best means of helping them? Will this reform lead to benefits for ACP counties, or will it increase exports from countries such as Brazil? The reports I hear from Brazil indicate a growth in sugar production, with plans to double their output over the next 10 years. I learned from someone who arrived back last weekend, having studied some of the factories there over the past three weeks, that 75 new plants are being erected in Brazil.
	That must be set against the possibility of 56 plants being removed in the European Union. Of course this would be sugar coming from a country with a greatly devalued currency and very low wages; moreover, a country where the environmental damage to fragile soils and tropical forests should be causes for real concern. Helping through trade the small, traditional supply countries, particularly through the Caribbean supply arrangements they have had in the past, is another matter which cannot be ignored. I re-emphasise that, in my opinion, many of those countries need different treatment.
	When he comes to respond, I am sure that the Minister will give the sugar industry the recognition it deserves, and hope for the future.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate. The expertise of those serving on Sub-Committee D of the European Union Committee is immense. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has been an excellent chairman. In his remarks he cast his net very wide indeed and covered an enormous spectrum of agricultural products, as well as the situation in the UK and the content of our report. As he said, we have been very fortunate in an excellent Clerk and a very good adviser in Sir John Marsh. I confess that I was one of his students many years ago. Some of our sessions felt a bit like rewinding the video. Sir John is still a very forthright and excellent communicator, just as he was when I was a postgraduate student.
	I cannot match the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in his description of the situation in East Anglia, nor the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I come from a livestock area, so I can say that I have probably distributed more bags of sugar-beet nuts to herds of dairy cows and flocks of sheep than any other noble Lord here. I recall that my first foray into front-line politics was as a candidate in Perth. At my very first meeting, a journalist from the Dundee Courier asked me what I thought of the impending closure of the Cupar Angus sugar beet factory. I remember saying, "I'm agin it because sugar beet is an excellent part of the rotation in Angus and Perthshire. It maintains the fertility of the soil and is an excellent crop with by-products for sheep". Does that not mirror what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, in his speech?
	This is a vast subject. The conclusion is that there is to be a minimum price cut of 36 per cent. The two main issues are how that will affect us here in the UK from the EU vantage, and how it affects the ACP countries in the worldwide balance we have been talking about. Indeed, the issues go even wider so far as the less developed countries are concerned. The EU production cut of 40 per cent is an enormous target to achieve. Setting that against a competitive EU sugar regime and a viable future for the ACP countries will be, as we stated in our report, very difficult if not impossible. But they are certainly clear objectives. The reduction in overall EU production from 19 million to about 9 million tonnes is very large. I believe that we have to look at alternative uses for sugar beet. I do not think that we can sustain some of these cuts and keep agriculture in our arable areas balanced, to say nothing of the by-products that the livestock industry in the UK also depends on.
	The EU must comply with the WTO ruling, to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred. It is interesting that the complaint came from Australia, Brazil and Thailand, which are massive producers. On the other side of the coin, as far as the UK is concerned, it is a bit like talking about Tesco, Sainsbury's and Asda in relation to selling our products in the UK market. Yet those countries want access to our market. As has been said about Brazil, where I was in the autumn, the potential there is vast. It could fulfil a lot of the demand on a worldwide scale. The WTO appeals panel upheld these complaints and, of course, the result is the reduction in production and cuts to the quota, which are very important.
	We have to take note of the report's conclusions, particularly as far as the ACP countries are concerned—they certainly need more than sympathy. Paragraph 133 in our report, under the heading "Effect of Reform of ACP Countries", states:
	"Witnesses from the ACP countries were understandably anxious about the precise sources of support money. We recommend that the Commission provides clarification as soon as possible to the ACP countries of which Directorate will have overall budgetary responsibility for the Action Plans".
	There seem to be an awful lot of things that are not tied up tightly enough. As has been said, the anxiety expressed by the ACP countries is a result of such uncertainties. Those countries are highly dependent on sugar output and, as we have heard, they do not have many alternatives. I was fascinated by the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. His experience of the situation in the ACP countries has been of enormous benefit to this debate, as we got all the background.
	Overall, this is a huge problem, which has to be tackled, as it is being now. We support the cuts, but we must not underestimate the impact on our own producers and those in the ACP countries, particularly as far as the one-third cut in the price of the product is concerned—that is a huge cut for the ACP countries.
	There may be some answers that we can grasp if we are bold. If we think about it—and these are just my own thoughts—we must remember that sugar beet originates in Europe. During the First World War, the supplies of sugar to Germany were cut off. People in continental Europe researched and produced root crops—they are used to growing them—and eventually supplied a lot of their own sugar from sugar beet that they grew themselves. This spread to Britain, particularly after the Second World War, as we have heard.
	Particularly in the United Kingdom, it would be very wise if we tried to transfer as soon as possible as much of the beet sugar as we can into the production of bioethanol for biofuels to meet the climate change objectives, as well as many other objectives. This is a very interesting time. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, say that £20 million has been invested in the plant in Norfolk, particularly in relation to world standards and what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was saying about the number of plants being built in Brazil. Let us not forget that those plants can produce sugar and bioethanol. I would like to see one of these plants. Do you just turn a switch to produce one or the other? It seems like that, the way it is described.
	Given what the Chancellor said in his Budget and the need to put more biofuels into the UK fuel market, considerable investment in the UK in plant and factories to convert sugar into bioethanol is required. Given what the Chancellor is doing, this would meet carbon-reduction targets—or not meet them, but go some way towards securing them. At the same time that might enable us to import more sugar from ACP countries, where they do not have these alternatives.
	This would achieve two important objectives at the same time and would also reduce imports of bioethanol from Brazil. It looked to many of us on the committee that a very high price was being paid environmentally in Brazil for growing more sugar. This kind of investment in the UK would help sustain British farmers and help to solve some of these other problems.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry as chairman of this committee and thank him and all the members of the committee who worked so hard to deliver a thorough and detailed report. It has dealt with complex and, in many cases, emotive situations.
	The debate has shown clearly how the committee was concerned about what would happen to producers within the UK and the EU, and particularly the implications for the ACP countries. Although it has been a little while since Lady Young passed away, she would have taken part in this debate, because she clearly strove to ensure that the ACP countries' interests were considered every time. If it was not bananas, it was certainly sugar. Some of the comments that have come from noble Lords tonight have reflected our continuing concern as to how we can sustain and encourage those countries to develop in different ways. The committee has highlighted this particularly well.
	The committee is to be thanked for its robust conclusions and for highlighting some of the areas that will need further attention. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, in introducing, challenged the Government on the job loss figures. The Minister has slightly clarified that, but if he could refer to it again when he winds up, that would be helpful. In other words, how many job losses does he see within the UK and how many within the EU?
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, raised the question of the ACP countries, as did other noble Lords. He referred in particular to Oxfam's forthcoming pamphlet, which will look at the whole question of the future work within those countries.
	I was extremely grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord MacGregor, because he looked at and was concerned in particular with the way in which British Sugar, as a company, is taking a responsible stand and trying to respond to the changes within the sugar regime. We are delighted to hear of the Wissington biofuel plant investment of £20 million. We look forward to that coming on stream.
	Several noble Lords have spoken of their anxiety to ensure that, within the UK, the sugar-beet growers should get that share of compensation. It should not be divided across all other farmers, growing whatever other crops. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that when he responds because I do not think that it is clear at present.
	My noble friend Lord Eccles asked what would happen to the world price of sugar. That is a big challenge for the Minister to respond to. I suspect that he has no idea what will happen to the world price of sugar, but I am confident that he will have a stab at it. The world price of sugar is a huge problem. Will it go up? Will it go down? What will happen? My noble friend Lord Eccles asked what would happen with the restructure plan of the ACP countries.
	My noble friend Lord Plumb characteristically hit the nail on the head as regards UK producers. I shall not go through all the points that he raised but I shall pick up on one or two. My noble friend mentioned the spring planting of crops and said that the payments should go to all farmers. My noble friend and I are both concerned that whatever we do in the UK should be done throughout Europe because otherwise, clearly, some beet farmers in Europe could benefit whereas some UK beet growers could end up getting less support. I have often laboured the next point hard and strong in other debates. My noble friend said that we must recognise that the United Kingdom is not an exporter of sugar. In fact, we produce only 55 per cent of our sugar requirement. It is strongly suggested that those who export more should take the bigger share of cuts. I totally agree with and underline my noble friend's resolve in that regard.
	Brazil has come in for a lot of comment in the House. If I lived and worked in Brazil, I might well ask, "What has Brazil done and why are they so against us?". Brazil has an enormous capacity not only as regards sugar production but also other farming outputs. As my noble friend highlighted, the threat posed to the European and, indeed, to the world market is that Brazil will double its output. It is a question of where that goes. Obviously, it will come back on to the world market.
	In looking at Recommendation 133, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, rightly asked which directorate would be responsible for taking aid to the ACP countries. The Minister should be able to answer that question. Very valuable points have been raised.
	The Government's response is welcome although I am concerned that, as regards the areas where they still have room to act, they should do so with a number of responsibilities in mind. The aid packages for both restructuring and diversification must be ring-fenced so that they are not simply assimilated into, for example, regional budgets, as my noble friend Lord MacGregor said. I say that partly because the effect of the reduction in sugar beet cultivation will be territorial, as we have heard. A third of it is produced in Norfolk. Farmers in Norfolk raised that concern with me when I visited Norfolk last Friday.
	The aid packages should also be negotiated so that growers, British Sugar and the Government have an equal influence on how they are used. I would like the committee and the Government to envisage a situation where the processors are involved alongside the farmers to determine what will happen in the future.
	The Government have stated more than once that a full regulatory impact assessment is in preparation. Can the Minister give us a firm date by which it will be available, if it is not already? How will it affect job losses? What are the implications for other agricultural production and, possibly, alternative end-term usage?
	I was pleased to note that the Government have confidence in the ability of the competition authorities both here and in the rest of the EU to take action against unfair practices in the restructuring of the EU market. I wonder, however, how long those authorities will take to agree that there is a problem before they actually address it. Will the Government ensure that the UK industry, from soil to spoon, is protected from unintentional disadvantage through perhaps an interjection by the Office of Fair Trading which acts well in advance of its continental counterparts? It is not an issue that was raised, but I am raising it with the Minister now, because the OFT sometimes intervenes.
	One of the less acceptable by-products of sugar reform is the threat to European wildlife caused by the gap in crop rotation if sugar beet is withdrawn. Other noble Lords have already spoken about the importance of that, particularly my noble friend Lord Plumb. Last July, in another place, my honourable friend Keith Simpson MP read out a letter from a farmer who grows sugar beet, linseed and spring barley in rotation. They are all grown in the spring. His farm is financially viable, and over the winter stubble supports a number of grey partridge, brown owls and other wildlife. If he can no longer earn a profit from sugar beet, he will have to change his crop rotation and start winter sowing of winter wheat, oilseed rape, and beans.
	As the Minister is aware, stewardships schemes are welcome, but they are unlikely to compensate adequately if many farmers face the loss of sugar beet as a basic crop. What have the Government done to further its use as feedstock for the production of bioethanol for fuel? Others have touched on that today. What was the outcome of the research at the Central Science Laboratory at Ryedale? It was noted last July in another place that it was virtually complete, and I wonder whether he can bring us up-to-date information on that. Yesterday's Budget does not appear to have included anything specific to encourage the production of bioethanol in the UK from UK feedstock.
	Returning to the report, the committee expressed great concern about the effect of price cuts on the ACP countries. I note the Government's response that the assistance of some €40 million is for the remainder of 2006, and that there will be help for the period beyond of 2007 to 2013. The implication is that there will be more, both in the sense of further assistance and in the sense of more generous assistance. Can the Minister give us any indication of the sort of levels for which the UK Government will be pressing?
	The granting of unlimited access to sugar from the least developed countries from 2009 rings alarm bells for me, in that it would appear that Australia will enter the list as well. It was third, after Brazil and the EU, in the list of top 15 sugar exporters in 2000. How will the Government act to ensure that once the EU is open to Australia it will not simply clean up at the expense of the really disadvantaged less developed countries, particularly the ACP countries that we talked about earlier? A lot of comment has drawn attention to the problems in Brazil, and of its capacity. That is a real problem and we need to address it.
	Finally, the agreement to end the EU export subsidies by 2013 is most welcome, especially in the case of sugar beet, as it will not affect the UK position. I would be glad if the Minister could tell us whether the agreement is balanced by any form of prohibition that will prevent other countries subsidising exports into the EU. It would be a most unwelcome development, were the ACP countries to find themselves pushed out by further unfair competition from third parties.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for his extremely helpful speech to commence the debate. I also thank the European Union Committee as a whole for giving us the opportunity to discuss the very important subject of sugar reform and its wider consequences and, as noble Lords have said, to look ahead, which is one of the main purposes of the debate. I also pay tribute to the members of Sub-Committee D for an excellent report. I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, chairman of the European Union Committee, for writing to me with the emerging findings ahead of the pivotal meeting of the EU agriculture Ministers in November last year, when agreement on a compromise package was successfully reached under our presidency.
	It was very valuable for two main reasons to have the benefit of the sub-committee's initial analysis as we went into the final stages of the negotiations: first, because of the support it gave to the rationale behind the European Commission's proposals; and secondly, for the way in which it highlighted the key areas where pressure was likely to come. Those themes were, of course, carried forward into the final report, which also had the advantage of being able to assess the final outcome as a whole and to set it in the wider context which is the subject of our debate today.
	Before embarking on the substance of this, I want to thank all those who have spoken in this debate for their characteristically considered and well informed contributions. They have ranged over wide areas of policy and reinforce the need for government to have a coherent and collective response beyond the remit of individual departments. That message is understood and I hope to be able to demonstrate that we are indeed taking a broad strategic view of these issues, in line with the span and depth of the sub-committee's own work. I welcome what the noble Lord. Lord MacGregor, had to say about British Sugar's commitment to the UK sugar industry. It was good to hear that.
	The Government have, of course, already provided their formal written response to the sub-committee's report and I do not intend to go over too much of that ground again today but I do not think that there are any other arithmetical mistakes. However, it may be helpful if I recall very briefly some of the major points as well as attempting to update the House on where we now stand in the process of implementing the reform package, ahead of the commencement date of 1 July.
	Following the November Council agreement, it was necessary for the European Commission to amend its original legislative proposals of June 2005 to reflect the presidency compromise. In addition to this technical work, the Council also needed to take delivery of the opinion of the European Parliament before proceeding to the formal adoption of the legal texts. During this time, it also became apparent to the Commission that the combination of existing sugar stocks in the EU, expected plantings in 2006 and the impact of the WTO export limits following the Panel case, meant that there was a real risk of oversupply to the market in the first year of the new regime, before the restructuring process was fully underway. The Commission therefore asked the Council to give it the power, for one year, to apply temporary measures to reduce EU beet production, over and above the various market management instruments already in the package. After debate in the Special Committee for Agriculture in late January and early February, the Council finally adopted all three regulations giving effect to the new sugar regime on 20 February, including the new temporary measures.
	Work has now begun at the level of the Commission-chaired Sugar Management Committee on the various detailed implementing rules necessary to bring the new regime into operation, including the temporary withdrawal of 2.5 million tonnes of sugar in the 2006–07 marketing year. Member states are also putting into place their own arrangements in respect of issues such as the incorporation of payments to sugar growers into existing direct payments schemes, on which we ourselves have launched a full public consultation, having listened to and taken advice from the National Farmers' Union on how we should approach that particular issue.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, on that point, can I have clarification from the Minister? I may be wrong, but I understand that the first view was that every farmer receiving a single farm payment would also receive some money for sugar beet that was no longer going to be grown, whether he had been growing sugar beet in the past or not. That has probably changed now, and the Secretary of State, having listened to the arguments, will direct payments for not growing sugar beet to those who were growing it before.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I would really like to be able to answer his question in a transparent way, to use a word from earlier this afternoon. He will, I hope, understand that I cannot say more about this today since the consultation is still so much in progress. No doubt I will have more to say about it in due course.
	One reason I should not say much is that I realise how sensitive and important this is for UK growers and processors. Indeed, let us be frank: in some instances farmer is divided from farmer on how it should be approached. However, the Secretary of State listened to the representations that were made, which is why the consultation is worded as it is. In practical terms, therefore, we are only now coming to the starting-line of a change process where a great deal will depend on the decisions of individual growers and processors within a new market-based structure, under substantially different terms of competition.
	I will briefly reiterate what we have already said in our formal response to the sub-committee in respect of prices, quotas and decoupling. Although the November compromise contained some changes from the June proposals, all the key elements remained as originally envisaged. These are: a substantial price cut of 36 per cent over four years; a voluntary restructuring scheme designed to promote rationalisation and efficiency; and a fully decoupled system of support for growers. The reformed regime is also designed to be fully consistent with both the EU's WTO obligations and its existing market access commitments, under the ACP sugar protocol and the "Everything But Arms" initiative.
	Some aspects of the November compromise in respect of aid for EU growers have given rise to misunderstanding on the question of decoupling. Only where more than 50 per cent of production in a member state is given up is it possible to make additional payments to help growers in the transitional phase. That is designed to stabilise the process of adjustment, not as a means of allowing the inefficient to gain unfair advantage. There has also been criticism of the decision to retain production quotas and not make them tradable. The reality is, however, that restructuring will lead to a redistribution of production within the EU and that the most efficient industries—including, if I may so, the UK industry—will have some scope to expand without upsetting the overall balance of supply and demand. That should lead, in turn, to a more competitive internal market with more cross-border trade. It is already clear, from around Europe, that the industry is facing up to the challenge, recognising it as a real and fundamental reform to what has been a major source of economic and trade distortion, both in the EU and far beyond.
	Before I address the ACP issues, the final RIA is due in April and will include an update on employment consequences. On the issue of using sugar surplus for biofuels—as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—the reform package allows out-of-quota sugar to be used for biofuels and for sugar beet to benefit from existing set-aside energy crop aids. British Sugar has announced its plans for a biofuels plant at its Wissington site. As for the Ryedale research, I shall write to the noble Baroness if she will allow that, as we do not yet know the response.
	I turn to the ACP issue. It is not just an ACP issue but one surrounding the EU's trading partners; in particular, our traditional suppliers in the ACP countries and that wider group of developing countries with preferential access rights under "Everything But Arms". That is, quite rightly, a key area of concern both in the sub-committee's report and in the speeches made today. As noble Lords will know, a commitment to provide proper adjustment aid for the ACP was an integral part of the Commission's approach to reform and of our own negotiating objectives. Because such aid is not a matter for the Agriculture Council, a separate proposal establishing an appropriate framework for the necessary action plans was put forward separately to the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The funding for these so-called accompanying measures is, however, further complicated by the EU's own budgetary procedures, which distinguish between expenditure for 2006 and that in the next financial perspective from 2007–13. The funds to pay for this transitional assistance are likely to come from the external relations directorate. The allocation will be in close collaboration with DG development.
	I can confirm that the framework itself and an initial sum, very much a down-payment, of €40 million for what remains of this calendar year, have now been agreed, including the relevant distribution between affected countries. But, importantly, this is entirely without prejudice to decisions for 2007–13, on which discussions are still continuing. I can also confirm that the ACP and LDCs will benefit from a two-year delay in cuts to the EU raw sugar price, which is guaranteed to them under existing arrangements.
	We in the UK are now focusing on ensuring that the limited funds for this year are put to the best possible use, including assisting several countries in developing their national action plans. Those plans are important, as they will outline how the 2007–13 funds will be used and help to generate investment funds to complement the EU assistance. The amount of assistance for those years is still under negotiation, and the House will not be surprised to hear that we are pressing for the best possible deal. We believe that at least €250 million of assistance per annum is needed for ACP countries successfully to make the transition to a post-sugar-reform environment. That figure is based on independent, evidence-based analysis.
	That analysis also highlights the importance of "frontloading", if I may use that expression—putting the money up early—the assistance if the adjustment process is to be successfully managed. Restructuring industries in potentially viable sugar producers, such as Mauritius, will take time to implement and deliver productivity improvements. Any failure to deliver the assistance in advance could lead—as noble Lords have hinted today—to closure of otherwise sustainable sugar industries, with serious economic, social and environmental consequences. Those countries, and there are some, planning to exit the sugar sector, such as St Kitts, need to invest now in physical and human capital projects, such as retraining programmes, to ensure a smooth transition to more productive sectors.
	In a sense, the LCDs are different—the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, made this point—because they have not enjoyed this preferential access in the past, as ACP countries have, but will in the future, under the "Everything But Arms" agreement. They will still get preferential treatment to twice the world market value.
	The UK has undertaken a number of activities to assist ACP countries in planning for the future—the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked me about this. These include funding pieces of research looking at the impact of sugar reform, and providing technical assistance, which has been of great help to several of the Caribbean countries most in need. This technical assistance includes funding for the development of action plans; the creation of business strategies from these plans; and research into the potential of bioethanol production as an alternative use for sugar cane. We in the UK, as you would expect given our history, are putting in a real effort, to use a phrase from the debate.
	On the WTO and the current Doha round negotiations, the House will know that we consider outcomes beneficial for developing countries to be paramount. Our approach can be described in two ways. First, we are harnessing and confronting head on the inevitable way forward—how the future will be. Secondly, we are pursuing an agenda which we believe will lead to a fairer and more open and inclusive global trading system. The House will therefore not be surprised to hear me say that the outcome of the World Trade Ministers meeting in Hong Kong last December was a little disappointing. It made only limited progress. The main progress was the agreement to end all agricultural export subsidies by 2013. However, the most fundamental elements of the round—agricultural and non-agricultural market access—remained unresolved, with key WTO members not able to agree on the formulae necessary for tariff cuts.
	The focus since has been on high-level political contact between the key players, rather than on detailed negotiations in Geneva. There have also been some technical meetings where progress has been made, but the big issues have yet to be resolved. As well as tariffs on non-agricultural goods, those big issues include agricultural market access and domestic support. Ministerial-level meetings took place on those in London earlier this month, but there was no breakthrough. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, kindly asked me in advance by letter to comment on that meeting. The G4/G6 ministerial meeting was held on the weekend of 10 to 12 March. The Commission represented the EU. We understand that there was good dialogue between the parties, but no real breakthrough. A couple of days before that, the Prime Minister, in his joint statement with President Lula of Brazil on 9 March, called for a heads meeting to move the process forward.
	The time pressures are increasing. The Hong Kong declaration set a deadline for modalities by the end of April and draft schedules by the end of July. That is an ambitious programme, but it is not far off what needs to happen in order to complete the round before the US trade promotion authority expires next year. Not concluding this round by then is likely to put the DDA into cold storage, and we would have missed an extremely important opportunity.
	We are playing a proactive role; we support an ambitious outcome to the round and believe that it must include a significant opening of the EU market to trade with all third countries. That is what we signed up to. Significant opening of the EU market or significantly improved market access will involve tariff cuts. That prospect is daunting to a number of ACP countries that enjoy preferential trading arrangements with the EU. The result of EU tariff reductions is that those preferences will, to a greater or lesser degree, be eroded. In addition, that preference erosion comes hard on the heels of the sugar reform that we have been discussing today, which reduced EU sugar prices. So tariff cuts will look doubly unattractive to some countries on top of that.
	It is essential that the nettle is grasped. The trend exemplified in WTO rounds is for tariffs to be reduced and for more liberal trade between countries. That is for good reason. We believe that there are a number of benefits from a more liberal trading regime and that protecting preferences should not undermine that goal. Less efficient ACP sugar producers need to examine with care what is best for them as their preferences become eroded, and they have to take decisions about the future of their affected industries. We have been assisting ACP countries with that.
	DfID is exploring the implications of the aid for trade commitment for our country and regional programming and is looking for opportunities to scale up assistance in ways that will lead to outcomes that reduce poverty and benefit poor people.
	I shall not pretend that any of this is easy, nor did the report. The challenges posed by sugar reform in the EU or among our trading partners are difficult, but as the sub-committee's report so clearly demonstrated, there is really no alternative. We must remember that, even after reform, countries with preferential access to the EU market will receive around twice the world price for their sugar. Reform should also see an end to the damaging export of subsidised surplus EU production, which depresses prices elsewhere and denies trading opportunities to others better able to compete in the market. Resources that are freed up by the ending of inefficient production can and should be put to better use. We need to do all that we can to ensure that the benefits of this historic step-change are released. I express once more the Government's gratitude to the Select Committee.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am always delighted and surprised by the ability of your Lordships to talk wisely and learnedly about a specialised subject. That has certainly been the case in this debate. Great expertise and wisdom has been shown, and I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part. I also thank the Minister for his final words about the acceptance of the need to use the final Doha development round of WTO negotiations to meet the important objectives of reducing tariffs and making access to markets more available for the developing world.
	I was reminded in the debate about the future of the sugar market. One of my noble friends—I think that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—said that there was little knowledge of what would happen next. Sugar, after all, is a commodity and an agricultural product. It is perhaps wise to remind ourselves of that. There was a hurricane in Australia a few days ago which is said to have wiped out Australian sugar production. That represents approximately 4 million tonnes off the export market. That will have a great effect on price and on decisions about which countries go on producing sugar. Perhaps that is a lesson that we all have to learn.
	I thank friends and colleagues from all sides of the House who have taken part in this very useful debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at seventeen minutes past six o'clock.
	Thursday, 23 March 2006.